Jagdish Gond vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024

Jagdish Gond ...Appellant Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The death; not unequivocally proved to be a

murder, of a young woman, married for two years,

led to the prosecution of her husband and in-laws.

The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused

finding the death to be a suicide and holding that

there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to

the guilt of the accused. The High Court; on Signature Not Verified

appeal by the State, against the acquittal, upheld Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.07 17:48:50 IST Reason: Page 1 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the

husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced

him to life imprisonment.

2. On facts regarding the incident, suffice it to

notice that the husband, on returning from work,

found his wife lying supine on the cot inside their

house. The accused immediately informed his

parents; living nearby and also the Police Station

at Mulmula, District – Janjgir, Champa, where it

was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, ‘the Cr.PC’)

as a sudden and unnatural death. The death was

detected on 29.01.2017 and the intimation was

made on the same day. An inquest was carried out

in which a ligature mark was noticed on the front

side of the neck of the deceased. No suspicion

was raised by anyone regarding the death. On

03.02.2017, on a complaint lodged by the father of

Page 2 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 the deceased, an FIR was registered and the three

accused were arrested. A charge sheet was filed,

and charge was framed under Sections 498A &

306 read with Section 34 and in the alternative

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. In the trial, eight witnesses were examined.

PW-1; the Patwari who prepared the site plan, PW-

2; father of the deceased, PW-3; Tehsildar who

prepared the inquest report (P-9), PW-4; mother of

the deceased, PW-5; who registered the FIR on the

complaint (P-5) of PW2, PW-6; the cousin of the

deceased, PW-7; the Investigating Officer and PW-

8; the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.

4. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding

the deceased to have committed suicide and held

there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to

the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court

emphasized the fact that there is no clear opinion

coming from the Doctor, who was examined as

Page 3 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 PW-8, as to the cause of death. Examining the

authoritative medical texts, it was opined that the

ligature mark on the front of the neck and the

various fractures noticed from the body, as has

been stated in the postmortem report, the clear

indication is that the death was not one by reason

of strangulation; especially since the ligature mark

was not found around the neck; ruling out the

possibility of death by hanging or strangulation.

5. The High Court however emphasized that the

accused and the deceased were living together

and hence, the accused should have an

explanation regarding the death of his wife under

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The

defense of the accused that he was on duty, at a

nearby cement factory on the ill-fated night was

disbelieved, since it was not substantiated by any

evidence led on the part of the accused. On the

grounds only of the ‘alibi’ put forth having been

Page 4 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 discredited and the admission of the deceased and

the accused living together in the same house, the

High Court convicted the accused under Section

302 of the IPC.

6. We have given our anxious consideration,

especially in the context of the acquittal by the

Trial Court having been reversed by the High

Court. The Division Bench of the High Court had,

in fact, noticed various judgments of this Court in

so far as the consideration of an appeal against

acquittal. It is trite that unless it is demonstrated

that there is some manifest illegality or perversity

in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while

arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an

acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed. Where

two views were possible, it is also trite, that the

one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused,

if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset

lightly by the Appellate Court. The presumption of

Page 5 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 innocence available to an accused gets further

fortified by the acquittal entered by the Trial Court.

Having noticed the trite law, we have to say, the

High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal

without anything other than a finding on alibi

having not been proved and the accused not

having offered any explanation regarding the

death of the deceased, which occurred while they

were living together.

7. Admittedly, the first information as recorded

in the sudden and unnatural death intimation

register was given by the husband, who is the first

accused in the above case. He was accompanied

by the Village Kotwar when he appeared before the

Police Station, Mulmula. Even in the said

information recorded, it was clearly noted that on

28.01.2017 at around 9 O’clock he had gone to the

cement factory for labour work and on his return at

6 AM on 29.01.2017, he saw his wife lying supine

Page 6 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 on her cot. After having entered into the house by

breaking open the door, which was closed from the

inside, he immediately informed his parents and

also the Ward Panch and as noticed above, he was

accompanied by the Village Kotwar when he

intimated the fact at the Police Station.

8. The Inquest Report, Exhibit P-9 prepared by

PW-3, indicates that there was no suspicion raised

by any person present at the inquest, regarding

the death of the woman. In fact, the father of the

deceased along with her in-laws had categorically

stated that the accused was not present in the

house on the night when the incident occurred.

The father of the deceased, PW-1, the mother PW-

4 and cousin brother PW-6 deposed that even

when they saw the deceased with a visible mark

on her neck, they suspected strangulation to be

the cause of her death. This is contrary to the

facts recorded in the Inquest Report. PW-1 also

Page 7 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 stated that in his written complaint produced as

Exhibit P-5 he had clearly stated about this

suspicion, which is startlingly absent in Exhibit P-5

as has been admitted, in cross-examination, by

PW-7 who registered the FIR on the complaint

Exhibit P-5 and carried out investigation. While PW-

2 and PW-6 denied that they were aware that the

accused was absent in the house on the ill-fated

night, PW-4, the mother, in her cross-examination

admitted that she was informed that the accused

was not present in the scene of occurrence. The

fact of absence of the accused at the time of

occurrence having been categorically stated in the

first intimation, we find the High Court’s conclusion

that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed.

9. We cannot also agree with the finding of the

High Court regarding the effect of Section 106,

placing reliance on the decision of this Court in

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of

Page 8 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 Maharashtra1. The said decision is an authority

for the principle that when an accused is alleged to

have committed the murder of his wife; if the

prosecution establishes that shortly before the

crime, they were seen together or the offence

takes place in the dwelling home where the

husband also resides, then if the accused does not

offer any explanation or offers an explanation

which is palpably false; that would be a strong

circumstance, establishing his culpability in the

crime. However, it cannot be the sole

circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on

the part of the accused husband. In the present

case, the accused has also offered an explanation

that he had gone for duty at the cement factory;

which is also mentioned in the first intimation

given by the accused. The police ought to have

inquired about his presence at the factory to 1 (2006) 10 SCC 681

Page 9 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 disprove his alibi. Even before the FIR was

registered, the intimation recorded clearly

indicated this fact. The explanation was not one

offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to

be false or even an improbable one. A mere

suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt,

especially when there is not available a chain of

circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt

of the accused in the alleged crime, as has been

held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra2.

10. The alibi being a possible and probable

explanation, the accused cannot also be found to

be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

We find that there was not enough material to

upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court,

especially when there was also no evidence led

regarding the death being a result of homicide.

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116

Page 10 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024

11. PW-8, the Doctor who conducted the

postmortem had categorically deposed that the

ligature mark was only found on the front part of

the neck. The evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6,

the close relatives of the deceased, who also saw

the body, spoke of the ligature mark, solely on the

front side of the neck. There were no ante mortem

injuries noticed in the inquest report or the

postmortem. The cause of death in the opinion of

the expert was due to ‘asphyxia shock and sudden

cardio respiratory arrest as a result of ante

mortem compression of trachea, fracture of cricoid

cartilage within 24 hours of postmortem’ (sic). The

postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-11

and the police had raised a query regarding the

death by Exhibit P-15. Exhibit P-15 raised two

questions (i) whether the mark found on the front

side of neck of the deceased can be caused by

Page 11 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 throttling and (ii) whether the death is homicidal or

suicidal. To the said queries, reply by PW-8,

Doctor, was as follows:-

“In this relation we had told that the mark found on the body of deceased is caused by noose and mark of throttling has not been found. Noose was not found on the body of deceased. So, the death of deceased was homicidal or suicidal is the subject of investigation. In this relation our report is Ex.P/16 and its part A to A bears signature of Senior Dr. R. Dahire.”

Hence, there was no clarity as to whether the

death was homicidal. We would not venture, as far

as the Trial Court did, to find the death to be a

suicide. But the fact remains that it has not been

established to be homicide.

12. Considering the fact that there was a charge

laid under Sections 498A & 306 read with Section

34 of the IPC, we looked at the depositions of the

related witnesses; PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6. The

Page 12 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 depositions of all three witnesses is only to the

effect that the in-laws of the deceased used to

complain that the deceased was lazy, sick and

slept throughout the day. There is absolutely no

allegation of any physical violence on the

deceased. Nor are there any injuries found on the

body, immediately before the incident, which could

lead to such an allegation.

13. We do not find a single circumstance pointing

to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of

circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the

accused and excluding every possible hypothesis,

except that of guilt. True, the young woman, who

was married just two years back died, tragically, at

the house of the husband. There is no evidence to

show that the husband was available on the ill-

fated night when the death occurred. The

husband–accused had a plausible explanation that

he was on duty when the death of his wife

Page 13 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 occurred. It was the husband who first intimated

the police about the sudden and unnatural death

of his wife. The relatives of the deceased having

come to the matrimonial house of the deceased on

the very same day of the death, did not raise any

suspicion as to the death being homicidal. It was

after five days that a complaint was registered,

alleging suicide by reason of the constant

complaints raised against the deceased by her

husband and in-laws; which remained largely

unsubstantiated.

14. Having found absolutely no circumstance

leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable

to sustain the order of the High Court which we set

aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial

Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The

accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in

any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed

by the accused shall stand discharged.

Page 14 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024

15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

………….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 07, 2025.

Page 15 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 2605/2024 JAGDISH GOND Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 107796/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 07-04-2025 This matter was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.

Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.

Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced

the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His Lordship.

The operative portion of the Judgment is

extracted as :-

Page 16 of 17

Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 “14. Having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court which we set aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial Court.

The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand discharged.

15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.“

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Page 17 of 17 Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024