- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dnyaneshwar v. State Of Maharashtra .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant married the deceased, Leelabai, on 31-5-2002. On 3-4-2003 she was found dead in her matrimonial home. A post-mortem conducted by PW-9 Dr. Ravindra revealed multiple ante-mortem bruises, particularly on the neck, and the doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia by throttling. The appellant, along with his parents, was charged under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on allegations that they had demanded ₹50,000 from the deceased’s family and had harassed her. The trial court convicted all three accused under both sections. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the parents but affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder. The present judgment concerns the appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the medical evidence—particularly the absence of neck fractures—undermined the prosecution’s claim that the deceased died of asphyxia (throttling).
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the fact that the death occurred inside the matrimonial home, was sufficient to uphold the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The numerous injuries noted by PW-9 did not include any neck fracture, casting doubt on the opinion that death was caused by throttling.
- Because the medical officer admitted he might have failed to observe all injuries, his conclusion on the cause of death lacked certainty and should not ground a conviction for murder.
Respondent/State's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar, (2007) 10 SCC 433 | Where a wife dies unnaturally inside premises exclusively occupied by the couple, the burden shifts to the husband to explain the circumstances of her death. | The Court invoked this principle to hold that, because the appellant failed to explain how his wife died in their home, the incriminating circumstances pointed to his guilt. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court accepted that the death was homicidal and that the ante-mortem injuries—especially the bruises on the neck—were consistent with throttling. It found that any omissions by PW-9 in noticing every injury did not negate the overall medical conclusion of death by asphyxia. The Court emphasized that the appellant did not dispute that the deceased was murdered inside their shared home and offered no alternative explanation for her death. Applying the precedent in Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar, the Court ruled that the burden was on the appellant to explain the circumstances, which he failed to do. Consequently, the evidentiary gaps alleged by the defence were insufficient to create reasonable doubt.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IPC AFFIRMED.
The direct effect is that the appellant’s life sentence (or other sentence imposed by the High Court) remains in force. The judgment reiterates the principle that, in cases of an unnatural death occurring within the matrimonial home, the spouse must provide a satisfactory explanation, although it sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming existing jurisprudence.
S.B Sinha, J.— The appellant before us is the husband of the deceased Leelabai. They were married on 31-5-2002. She was found dead at her matrimonial home on 3-4-2003.
2. On a post-mortem examination having been conducted, PW 9, Dr. Ravindra, the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalna found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person:
“(1) Contusion over right thigh laterally upper part reddish chest 3 cm × 2 cm.
(2) Bluish discolouration present over right leg beten (sic) knife 2 cm × 2 cm.
(3) Bluish discolouration present over right leg near ankle joint 2 cm × 2 cm.
(4) Bruise over neck below left mandible 1 inch × 1.5 cm each noxis present beneath.
(5) Bruise over neck ant below above injury 2 cm × 1 cm ecchymosis present.
(6) Bruise over neck and above thyroid cartilage 1.5 cm × 1 cm ecchymosis seen.
(7) Bruise over neck ant below right to above injury 2 cm × 1 cm ecchymosis main seen.
(8) Bruise over neck and below above ignore and right side 1 stab × 1 cm echaminc ccc….”
3. According to PW 9 Doctor Ravindra, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was due to asphyxia (throttling).
4. The appellant before us as also his parents were prosecuted for commission of an offence of murder of Leelabai. The prosecution case proceeded on the basis that after the marriage; the appellant and his parents have all along been demanding a sum of Rs 50,000 from the parents of the deceased and was also being subjected to harassment and ill-treatment.
5. First information report was lodged by PW 1, Sheshrao, father of the deceased. In order to prove the charge of harassment, apart from the father of the deceased, PW 2, Satyanarayan and PW 5, Raghunath were examined. Relying on or/on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held the appellant as also Accused 2 and 3 guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.
6. However, on an appeal preferred by the accused herein, the appellant alone was found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC and Accused 2 and Accused 3 were acquitted.
7. The High Court found that an attempt was made by the accused to keep the commission of the offence concealed for a long time. We may not go into that aspect of the matter as the principal contention raised before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant centres round the nature of ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.
8. Learned counsel pointed out that although a large number of injuries were noticed by PW 9 Dr. Ravindra, no fracture having been seen, the cause of death could not have been stated to be asphyxia (throttling). The said witness, however, referred to the injuries suffered by the deceased and stated that the injuries on the neck may be possible in case of throttling. He, however, accepted that he might have failed to notice all the injuries.
9. The High Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment. It noticed that absence of some injuries by the said PW 9 Dr. Ravindra, may not be sufficient to hold the appellant not guilty of commission of the said offence.
10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar (2007) 10 SCC 433, (2007) 1 Scale 19 this Court held:
“22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge as also by the High Court categorically goes to show that at the time when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e by a gunshot injury is not disputed. The fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute.
23. The autopsy report shows that ‘a blackening and charring’ existed so far as Injury (i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over glabella (middle of forehead). It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not on the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same.”
11. If the prosecution case in regard to homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is accepted, in our opinion, the ante-mortem injuries clearly go to show that she had been done to death. Only because PW 9 Dr. Ravindra failed to notice some injuries on her neck so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that the death was caused by asphyxia, we are of the opinion that the appellant in a case of this nature cannot take benefit thereof.
12. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
Alert