In Brief
A husband was convicted of murdering his wife by strangulation in their matrimonial home. The prosecution relied on testimony from the victim's stepbrother and post-mortem evidence; several witnesses turned hostile. The appellant argued the evidence was insufficient due to few witnesses and lack of direct evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the quality—not quantity—of evidence matters. Since the death occurred within the husband's home with only family present, the inmates bore a duty to explain the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The credible testimony and medical evidence of strangulation, combined with the absence of any plausible explanation from the accused, formed a complete circumstantial chain of guilt. The appeal was dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.