Merely because the wife’s body was found in their house, the burden cannot be put on the husband’s shoulder to prove the circumstances in which she died, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court observed while acquitting a man from charges of cruelty and murder.
“Merely because the dead body was inside the house and it was the normal place of abode for the accused, we cannot employ the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and put a burden on the accused that he should explain the circumstances in which his wife was murdered inside the house,” said a division bench of Justices Vicha Kankawadi and Abhay Waghwase on November 6.
The High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the man challenging his conviction and life sentence awarded by the sessions court.
On December 28, 2025, the sessions judge at Vijapur, Aurangabad, convicted the husband for murder and cruelty. His mother and brother, who lived in the same house, were acquitted.
An FIR was registered by the deceased’s father alleging that after eight-nine months of marriage, his daughter was harassed by her husband and his family. They allegedly demanded Rs 15,000 for construction of a house under the ‘Gharkul Yojana’.
The father said that he was initially informed that his daughter had died of a snake bite. However, he later saw that his daughter had strangulation marks on her neck. The police reportedly found a rope made from old clothes in the house, which was seized.
The husband’s advocate KA Ingle submitted that his mother and brother were acquitted. Merely because he was the husband, it couldn’t be said that he should give an explanation regarding the circumstances in which his wife was found dead, the advocate argued.
Refuting the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment, Ingle said that the discovery of the rope could not be considered as valid as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
State advocate SJ Salgare opposed the plea contending that there was sufficient material against the husband.
However, the high court noted that the trial judge had not properly appreciated the evidence concerning Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
“It was not considered that the said evidence is not fulfilling the golden principles above said in respect of circumstantial evidence and also the burden had never shifted or was on the shoulders of accused.. to explain the circumstances, in which his wife was found dead inside the house,” the bench said.
Besides, the High Court said that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 498A for cruelty, while acquitting the husband.
“Merely because he is the husband, it cannot be said that he should give explanation in respect of the circumstances in which his wife was found dead. Even as regards the alleged ill-treatment is concerned, none of the witnesses have stated that when the amount was demanded and at what time the last demand was made. There is no proximity between the alleged demand and deceased was found to be dead,” the High Court added.
