When a Wife is Murdered Inside Her Own Home, the Husband Cannot Remain Silent — Bombay High Court on Circumstantial Evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act

"The burden is on the accused to explain how his wife died inside their shared home — his silence becomes an additional link in the chain of guilt." - Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his pregnant wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court modified the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, replacing "life imprisonment for remainder of natural life" with ordinary life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in V. Sriharan.

This case underscores critical principles of circumstantial evidence, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the boundaries of sentencing powers of trial courts in cases involving heinous crimes like domestic homicide.

Homicidal Death Inside Matrimonial Home: Burden Shifts to Accused to Explain Circumstances

In its opening observation, the Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande emphasized the central legal issue:

“The death of the deceased occurred when she was in the company of the accused in their matrimonial home. In such cases, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is on the accused to explain the circumstances. His failure to do so is a vital link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.” [Para 46–50]

The Court applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that when a murder takes place in the privacy of a home, the accused cannot merely stay silent.

Murder of Pregnant Wife with an Axe — Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified

The case involved Chandrashekhar Sarode, convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 10 August 2018, for the brutal murder of his wife Rupali using an axe. The incident occurred on 3 June 2016, inside their shared matrimonial home, where only the couple resided separately from the accused’s parents. The wife, who was four to five months pregnant, suffered multiple incised and chop wounds, resulting in her death due to hemorrhagic shock, as confirmed by PW4, Dr. Deji Talekar.

The trial court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life and imposed a fine of ₹50,000. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, citing that such a "remainder of life" punishment can only be awarded by the High Court or Supreme Court per the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan [(2016) 7 SCC 1].

History of Marital Discord, Counselling, and Prior Ill-Treatment

The prosecution proved a history of domestic abuse. The deceased had filed complaints of assault and harassment by the accused, which were referred to a counseling center at Katol Police Station. PW16, the counselor, confirmed that the accused had given a written undertaking not to harass his wife, but continued his violent behavior.

Neighbours and villagers (PWs 5, 8, and 9) corroborated the repeated quarrels, particularly on the day of the incident. Witnesses heard screams from inside the locked house and saw the accused flee after opening the door.

Medical and Forensic Evidence Confirmed Brutal Homicide

PW4, Dr. Talekar, conducted the post-mortem and identified seven severe wounds, including a chopped wound on the back of the neck, which severed major blood vessels, cervical vertebra, trachea, and esophagus. The injuries were sufficient to cause death and were “possible with the seized axe”, which was recovered from the scene.

Importantly, blood stains of Group ‘B’ (belonging to the deceased) were found on the shirt of the accused, according to the Chemical Analyzer's report. The accused offered no explanation for these incriminating stains during his Section 313 CrPC statement or otherwise, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.

“The blood stains found on the shirt of the accused of the same group as that of the deceased, without explanation, is a telling circumstance linking the accused to the crime.” [Para 52]

Section 106 Evidence Act and Inference of Guilt in Circumstantial Evidence

The Court extensively relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, clarifying: “The burden on the prosecution in cases of domestic murder is lighter due to the secrecy of the crime. Once the prosecution proves foundational facts, the accused must offer a plausible explanation.” [Para 47]

It also reiterated: “A Judge presides not merely to ensure that no innocent man is punished but also to ensure that no guilty man escapes. Both are public duties.” [Para 47, citing Trimukh Maroti Kirkan]

The accused’s total denial, combined with the lack of any plausible theory of alternative involvement, completed the chain of circumstantial evidence.

Defence of False Implication Rejected: Even Defence Witnesses Supported Prosecution Case

The accused tried to suggest that the deceased had a relationship with another man, but the Court found this defence “unsupported by any credible evidence”.

In fact, DW1, the accused’s father, and DW2, a villager, both testified to the violent and erratic behavior of the accused. DW1 admitted that the accused harassed even his own parents, and had been separated within the same house.

“Thus, even the defence witnesses corroborate that the accused’s conduct was violent and unacceptable, undermining the theory of false implication.” [Para 41]

Sentence Modified: Trial Court Exceeded Jurisdiction

The Court modified the sentence from "life for remainder of natural life" to ordinary life imprisonment, stating:

“The trial court has no jurisdiction or power to impose sentence by mentioning any specific term of incarceration… such power is reserved for High Courts and the Supreme Court alone.” [Para 58, relying on V. Sriharan]

The final sentence was life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine of ₹50,000, and in default, rigorous imprisonment of two years.

Murder Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Court Finds No Merit in Appeal

The High Court ultimately concluded that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the accused's silence, the homicidal injuries, the presence of deceased’s blood on his clothing, and the failure to offer any explanation, unerringly pointed to the guilt of the husband.

“As the circumstances enumerated above unerringly point out the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence, the appeal has no merits.” [Para 55]

The appeal was partly allowed, only to the extent of modifying the sentence.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2025