Husband Can't Escape Burden of Proof under Section 106 of Evidence Act by False Defense: SC

The Supreme Court affirmed that an inmate cannot evade the statutory onus under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by fabricating false explanations when exclusive custody is admitted. The bench emphasized that offering a concocted narrative to explain an unnatural death inside the privacy of a matrimonial home directly completes the chain of circumstantial evidence to establish murder. 

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dismissed the appeals challenging the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife, while upholding the statutory presumptions for dowry death.

Rejection of Accidental Seizure Theory

The Bench examined the facts where the wife died of ‘asphyxia due to throttling’ within nine months of marriage. The accused husband set up a defense that she suffered a fatal epileptic fit during sexual intercourse. Medical evidence conclusively refuted this narrative, confirming death by asphyxia due to throttling with fractures to the hyoid bone. The Supreme Court noted that the husband admitted being in exclusive company of the deceased in the privacy of the matrimonial home. The failure to offer a plausible explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, paired with a false defense, fortified the prosecution's case.

Death Within Matrimonial Home

The Apex Court observed that "Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed."

The Supreme Court also affirmed the reliance placed on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2006) 10 SCC 681": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 500) to emphasize that inmates cannot simply keep quiet or offer false pleas.

Background

The marriage took place on May 12, 1995, and the victim met an unnatural death on February 1, 1996. The victim's brother lodged a complaint alleging continuous harassment, starvation, and physical cruelty over unlawful dowry demands including cash, a television set, and land. The trial court convicted the husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting them of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On appeal, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed the convicts' appeal and partly allowed the State's appeal by converting the husband's acquittal into a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Appeals were brought before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Pending proceedings, the father-in-law passed away, abating his appeal. The Supreme Court found no perversity in the High Court judgment and upheld the convictions.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1849 of 2013
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1187
Case Title: Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 9521