The Allahabad High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that mere proximity or last seen status is insufficient to establish guilt without concrete proof of presence and exclusion of alternative possibilities. The judgment reinforces the foundational principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the death of Mamta, a young woman who was found dead in her matrimonial home in Partapur, District Rampur, on the morning of 15.08.2017. The prosecution alleged that she was murdered by throttling by her husband Mahipal, father-in-law Sompal, mother-in-law Sharda, and other in-laws due to unfulfilled dowry demands. The trial court convicted Mahipal alone under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting all other accused. The conviction was based on the theory that Mahipal, as the husband and last seen person with the deceased, must have committed the crime.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Mamta, was married to Mahipal around three years prior to her death on 14.08.2017.
- The marriage was solemnized on 14.08.2014.
- The deceased became pregnant after two years of marriage and delivered a stillborn child at Lovey Hospital.
- The prosecution alleged repeated dowry demands: Rs. 1 lakh cash, a car, and money for house construction.
- The deceased was allegedly tortured for non-payment of dowry and was turned out of the house temporarily, leading to a panchayat and reconciliation.
- On 14.08.2017, the deceased was found dead with a ligature mark on the neck, swelling on the head and right eyebrow, and an abrasion on the left chest.
- The post-mortem conducted on 15.08.2017 at 2:45 PM concluded cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem throttling, but noted the hyoid bone was intact and no nail marks were present.
- The doctor opined that the injuries could also be consistent with hanging or fall after hanging.
- No weapon, rope, or broken bangles were recovered.
- The deceased was wearing a chain, bindi, and intact bangles at the time of discovery.
- Mahipal was a driver and frequently away from home for extended periods.
- The elder sister of the deceased, Guddi (alias Maldei), was married in the same village and was not examined by the prosecution.
- The first informant, Rameshwar (uncle of the deceased), claimed he was informed of the death by an unknown caller.
- The father of the deceased, Sompal, claimed he received the information from Guddi.
- Contradictory statements were made regarding who bore the medical expenses during the deceased’s pregnancy.
Procedural History
- 14.08.2017: Death of Mamta.
- 15.08.2017, 10:05 AM: Inquest commenced.
- 15.08.2017, 11:00 AM: Inquest completed.
- 15.08.2017, 2:45 PM: Post-mortem conducted.
- 15.08.2017: FIR lodged at Police Station Milak under Crime No. 552 of 2017.
- 20.01.2018: Charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
- 07.12.2022: Alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC framed.
- 07.04.2023: Sessions Judge, Rampur, convicted Mahipal under Section 302 IPC and acquitted all other accused.
- 12.05.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 4514 of 2023 decided by the Allahabad High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Prosecution
The prosecution contended that Mahipal, as the husband and last seen person with the deceased, was responsible for her death. It relied on the theory of last seen, the location of death within the matrimonial home, and the alleged history of dowry harassment to infer guilt. It argued that the absence of other suspects and the presence of injuries supported the conclusion of throttling.
For the Appellant
The appellant, Mahipal, argued that the prosecution failed to prove his presence at the scene on the night of the incident. He highlighted his occupation as a driver with frequent absences. He challenged the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, pointing out contradictions in their testimonies, especially regarding the source of information about the death and medical expenses. He relied on the defence witnesses who testified to suicide by hanging and the medical opinion that hanging could not be ruled out.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal of the charge under Section 302 IPC, setting aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30,000, along with the four-month additional imprisonment for default of fine. He also sought discharge of his bail bonds and sureties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the last seen theory, combined with the accused’s marital status and cohabitation, can alone sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC in the absence of direct evidence placing the accused at the scene, excluding reasonable doubt, or corroborating the prosecution’s version.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Smt. Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738 to argue that mere cohabitation or last seen status does not shift the burden of proof to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. He emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish Mahipal’s presence on the night of the incident, despite his occupation as a driver with a history of prolonged absences. He highlighted contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 regarding the source of information about the death, the role of Guddi (the deceased’s sister), and the medical expenses during pregnancy. He further argued that the medical evidence did not conclusively rule out hanging, and the absence of nail marks or hyoid fracture weakened the throttling theory. The acquittal of other co-accused on identical evidence rendered the conviction of Mahipal arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent
The learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the deceased was found dead in the appellant’s house, and the prosecution’s evidence of dowry harassment and last seen status created a strong inference of guilt. He argued that the trial court rightly applied the principle that when death occurs under suspicious circumstances in the house of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances. He maintained that the defence version of suicide was improbable and unsupported by credible evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and held that the prosecution failed to discharge its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish a prima facie case. As held in Smt. Gargi v. State of Haryana, companionship under the same roof does not create a presumption of guilt.
"The trial court and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that Section 106 of the Evidence Act directly operates against the appellant. In our view, such an approach has also not been free from error where it was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden."
The Court noted that the prosecution did not establish whether Mahipal was present in the house on the night of 14.08.2017. His profession as a driver, with documented periods of absence, created a reasonable possibility that he was not present. The Court further observed that the prosecution did not investigate the source of the phone call informing the first informant, nor did it examine Guddi, the deceased’s sister, who was married in the same village and could have been a crucial witness on the issue of dowry harassment.
The Court also highlighted contradictions in the prosecution’s case: P.W.-1 claimed the information came from an unknown caller, while P.W.-2 claimed it came from Guddi. The medical evidence was inconclusive - the doctor admitted the injuries could result from hanging, and the absence of nail marks or hyoid fracture undermined the throttling theory. The defence witnesses, who were unrelated to the accused, consistently testified to suicide by hanging, and their testimony was not rebutted with credible evidence.
The Court further observed that the acquittal of all other co-accused on the same set of facts rendered the conviction of Mahipal legally untenable. If the evidence was insufficient to convict the father-in-law and mother-in-law, it could not sustain a conviction against the husband on the same basis.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 07.04.2023 of the Sessions Judge, Rampur, convicting the appellant Mahipal under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000 and four months additional imprisonment for default, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds and sureties are discharged. He is to be released forthwith if not detained in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Last Seen Alone Is Not Enough for Conviction
- Practitioners must now argue that last seen theory requires a minimal time gap between last sighting and discovery of death, and must exclude all reasonable alternatives.
- Mere cohabitation or marital status cannot substitute for proof of presence or opportunity.
- Courts must not presume guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act without the prosecution first establishing a prima facie case.
Prosecution Must Investigate All Leads
- Failure to examine key witnesses, such as a sister living in the same village, renders the prosecution’s case defective.
- Contradictions in testimonies regarding critical facts - such as source of information, medical expenses, or cause of death - must be resolved in favour of the accused.
- Investigation must be thorough: phone records, alibi verification, and forensic clarity are essential.
Medical Evidence Must Be Conclusive
- In cases of alleged throttling, absence of hyoid fracture or nail marks must be addressed by expert testimony.
- Where post-mortem admits alternative causes (e.g., hanging), the prosecution must rule them out conclusively.
- Defence versions supported by independent witnesses cannot be dismissed without rebuttal.
