In Brief
A husband was convicted of murdering his 20-year-old wife by throttling in their home on 22 October 2010. The victim's grandfather brought her body to police, triggering an FIR for murder under Section 302 IPC. The post-mortem confirmed homicidal death by asphyxia due to throttling. Although private witnesses later claimed the wife died of illness in hospital, the inquest report drawn at the police station—signed by these same witnesses—contradicted this story. The appellant fled and offered a false alibi about fetching medicines. Both trial court and high court found guilt proven through circumstantial evidence: the complete chain comprised the victim's residence with the appellant, homicidal post-mortem findings, the false hospitalization narrative endorsed by the appellant, his flight and false explanation, and failure to explain fatal injuries to his wife. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that when prosecution establishes primary facts and the accused offers no or false explanation to incriminating circumstances, Section 106 operates to complete the chain, shifting the evidential burden to him. Absence of proven motive cannot override overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.