In Brief
A woman was convicted of murdering her husband based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal and acquitted her. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish all essential links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The knife recovered could not have caused the severe chop injuries described in the post-mortem; the evidence suggested multiple assailants; and the appellant's defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that she found her husband already injured, was not considered by the lower courts. The Court held that grief and shock, not tears, are normal responses to a loved one's death, and that the non-consideration of the defence vitiated the conviction. Benefit of doubt was given to the appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.