The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Janved Singh

2025 INSC 1229 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF 2014

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH APPELLANT

VERSUS JANVED SINGH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

The law often steps into homes not to witness celebration,

but to lift the veil from grief. The present appeal arises from such

a home where warmth of a hearth turned into cold silence of

death. The State challenges the acquittal of two men, the

husband and father-in-law of young woman whose life ended in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.10.14

mysterious, yet telling circumstances.

16:12:03 IST Reason:

1

2. This appeal by the State is directed against judgment and

order dated 06.04.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2000,

whereby High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, has

set aside the conviction and sentence of both the respondents,

recorded by Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302,

304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has

acquitted them.

PROSECUTION CASE

3. The deceased Smt. Pushpa was married to accused No.2,

Mahesh. The marriage however was beset with discord. The

deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty at the hands

of her husband (A-2) and father-in-law Janved Singh (A-1), on

account of demand for dowry.

4. On 31st December, 1997, accused No.1 lodged a report at

Police Station, Gormi stating that when he returned from the

agricultural field, he found the deceased lying dead and she died

due to electrocution while ironing the clothes. On the basis of

said intimation, the Police registered Merg report (Ex.P-16) under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After the

preliminary inquiry, the Police converted the Merg into a regular 2 Criminal Case and registered Crime No. 9/1998 for offences

under Sections 302, 498-A, 193 and 201 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

5. During the investigation, Police found discrepancies in the

scene of occurrence and the condition of the body of the

deceased. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr.

Devendra Khare, revealed that cause of death was asphyxia due

to strangulation and burn marks on the body were post-mortem.

On completion of the investigation, the Police filed chargesheet

for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative

302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the IPC against five

accused persons namely, Janved Singh (father-in-law), Mahesh

Singh (husband), Ramkali (mother-in-law), Sharda (sister-in-law),

and Ahivaran Singh (brother-in-law) of the deceased.

TRIAL AND CONVICTION

6. The prosecution during the course of the Trial examined as

many as 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence

namely, Exhibits P-1 to P-19. The parents of the deceased

Pushpa and her uncle namely, Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai

(PW-19) and Ramesh (PW-4) were examined. Ramesh (PW-4), the 3 maternal uncle of deceased, corroborated the statements of the

parents of the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18)

described the details of the recovery of material evidence and

sequence of investigation. The defence examined one witness Shri

Ram Singh (DW-1), who in his statement stated that deceased

Pushpa’s death was purely accidental which was caused by

electric shock while she was ironing the clothes and the accused

have been falsely implicated.

7. The Sessions Court vide judgment dated 11th of January,

2000, on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, held

that theory of electrocution was wholly fabricated and deceased

Pushpa’s death was homicidal in nature. The court further held

that Mahesh Singh, the husband, was guilty of offences under

Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. It was also held that

Janved Singh, the father-in-law, actively participated in the

murder, fabricated a false report and attempted to cause

disappearance of evidence. Accordingly, he was convicted under

Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the IPC and they both were

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and

rigorous imprisonment for life, respectively. The remaining co-

4 accused namely, Ramkali (mother-in-law), Sharda (sister-in-law)

and Ahivaran Singh (brother-in-law) were acquitted.

HIGH COURT’S VIEW

8. On appeal by the accused persons, the High Court reversed

the conviction and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The

High Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2010 inter alia held that

prosecution has failed to establish that death occurred within 7

years of the marriage and testimonies of PW-2 and PW-19

namely, the father and mother of the deceased, were recorded

after a delay of 6 to 10 months and therefore their credibility was

diminished. It was further held that Lagan Patrika (Ex. P-3) was

seized nearly a year later which lacked the names of bride and

groom and was inadmissible. It was further held that there was

no evidence that Janved Singh was present at the time of scene

of occurrence. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal

and acquitted both the accused in respect of all the charges

levelled against them.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, this

appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. A Bench of

this Court by an order dated 05.08.2011 dismissed this appeal

5 in so far as Mahesh Singh namely, the husband of the deceased.

The scope of the appeal is confined only to the acquittal of

respondent No.1 namely, Janved Singh i.e. father-in-law of the

deceased.

SUBMISSIONS

10. Learned counsel for the State submitted that High Court

fundamentally erred in reappreciating the evidence and in

discarding credible testimony of the witnesses. It is contended

that from the deposition of Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai

(PW-19) and Ramesh (PW-4) namely, parents and uncle of

deceased Pushpa, it is evident that the facts of persistent

harassment and cruelty inflicted upon Pushpa in connection with

demand of dowry were well established. From the statements of

aforesaid witness, it is also clear that deceased, shortly before her

death, was ill treated and was beaten up. It is also urged that

autopsy report clearly proved that Pushpa was first strangulated

and thereafter subjected to electric current in order to disguise

the death as accidental electrocution.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

submitted that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence 6 connecting the respondent from the alleged offences. It is

submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses (PW-

2, PW-19 and PW-4) have been recorded belatedly and they are

related to each other and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is

also contended that prosecution has failed to establish the exact

year or date of marriage, an essential ingredient to attract an

offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is also contended that

there is no material to show that Janved Singh was present at

the time of death and no motive or any overt act has been

attributed to him. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned

judgment does not call for any interference in this appeal.

THE LEGAL POSITION

12. It is trite law that a conviction for murder can solely rest on

circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete

and consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused1.

13. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down a general

rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the

prosecution and Section 106 is not intended to relieve the

prosecution of its duty to prove the case. On the contrary, it is 1 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

7 designed to meet exceptional cases in which it would be

impossible, or at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the

prosecution to establish facts within the knowledge of the

accused which he can prove without any difficulty or

inconvenience. The word “especially” used in Section 106 of the

Evidence Act means the facts which are pre-eminently or

exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused2. The

traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution

cannot be allowed to be wrapped in a pedantic coverage, the

offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries

and the society would be the casualty3.

14. It is well settled in law that when an accused offers a false

explanation regarding the cause of death which takes place

within the confines of his house, such falsity becomes an

additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt

of the accused.4

2 Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337 3 State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Others (2000) 8 SCC 382 4 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 8

15. It is equally well settled legal proposition that while dealing

with an appeal against the acquittal the reasons which weighed

with the Trial Court must be dealt with. The normal presumption

of innocence gets reinforced with an order of acquittal. If two

views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate

court must be extremely slow in interfering with an appeal

against an order of acquittal.5

THE REAPPRAISAL

16. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we

may advert to the facts of the case in hand. We are conscious of

the fact that we are dealing with an appeal against an order of an

acquittal. The post-mortem report and evidence of Dr. Devendra

Khare (PW-1) leaves no manner of doubt that death of the

deceased was homicidal. The aforesaid witness has deposed that

there were ligature marks around the neck consistent with

strangulation. There was an injury on the body and the burn

injuries were post-mortem.

5 Sanjeev & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 294 9

17. The version given by the accused No.1 namely, father-in-law

to the Police that deceased died of electrocution while ironing the

clothes stands falsified by medical evidence. The deceased died in

a room on the first floor. The incident had taken place 5.00 am in

the morning. The accused No.1 was at home on the date of

incident and had lodged false report that deceased died of electric

shock. The explanation offered by the accused No.1 that he

returned from the field to find the deceased dead is not supported

by any witness. Neither any neighbour nor any person, employed

by him in the field, has been examined by the accused No.1 to

corroborate his claim.

18. From the statement of the parents of the deceased

namely, Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai (PW-19), and uncle

Ramesh (PW-4), it is axiomatic that accused persons used to beat

the deceased and made demands of dowry.

19. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has

established the complete chain of circumstances namely, (i) the

unnatural death of the deceased which was not accidental but

homicidal as established from the medical evidence, (ii) the death

occurred inside the house occupied by accused No.1 which was

10 under his control, (iii) the FIR lodged by accused No.1 himself

establishes his presence in the house at the relevant time, (iv) the

version of the accused No.1 that he had gone to the field is wholly

unsubstantiated by any witness or independent corroboration, (v)

the deliberate lodging of a false report of electrocution and an

attempt to mislead the investigation, (vi) the strained relations

between son of accused No.1 and his daughter-in-law and

persistent demands for dowry. Each link fits seamlessly with the

next, forming a continuous chain which points unerringly to the

guilt of accused No.1 and excludes all reasonable hypothesis of

innocence. Once the aforesaid circumstances pointing out the

guilt of the accused No.1 was proved, the burden was on the

accused No.1 to explain the circumstances under which the

deceased died in the house occupied by him. The accused No.1

has miserably failed to discharge the aforesaid burden.

20. The High Court has not considered the material evidence

on record and has failed to take into account the reasons which

weighed with the Trial Court for convicting the accused Janved

Singh. The findings recorded by the High Court suffers from

serious infirmity.

11 CONCLUSION

21. In view of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1-Janved Singh

caused the death of deceased by strangulation and attempted to

mislead the investigation by fabricating a false story of

electrocution.

ORDER

22. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned

judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment

of the Trial Court in so far as it pertains to conviction and

sentence of Janved Singh. Janved Singh shall be taken into

custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence.

23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

……………….……………J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

..…….…………………….J. [ALOK ARADHE] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 14, 2025.

12