SC Upholds Husband's Murder Conviction: Section 106 Burden

Husband's False Epilepsy Plea Completes Chain Under Section 106: Supreme Court Upholds Murder and Dowry Death Convictions

Published: 2 November 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court upheld a husband's murder conviction and life sentence for the death of his wife, throttled at the matrimonial home within about nine months of marriage, and the dowry death and cruelty convictions of the husband and his brother. Because she was in his exclusive company, Section 106 of the Evidence Act required him to explain her death; his epileptic-fit story, refuted by the medical evidence, completed the chain of circumstances (paras 38-40, 44-46).

Key holdings

The husband's murder conviction and life sentence, imposed by the High Court on reversing his acquittal, stand (paras 4, 45-46).

Following Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, inmates of a house where a death occurs in secrecy must explain it (paras 38-39).

An epileptic-fit plea contradicted by neck injuries and a throttling opinion was held false (paras 34-36).

Corroborated dowry-harassment evidence left the Section 113-B presumption unrebutted (paras 42-44).

Bail bonds are cancelled; the appellants must surrender before the trial court within four weeks (para 47).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The husband married the deceased in May 1995; she died at the matrimonial home on 1 February 1996, of asphyxia due to throttling, per the post-mortem (paras 8, 12). The prosecution alleged harassment over demands for Rs. 50,000, a television set, a tape deck and a plot (para 8). The husband told the police she died of sudden giddiness during intercourse (para 12). In 1998 the trial court convicted him, his father and brother under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted all accused of murder (paras 14-15). On 3 July 2013 the Bombay High Court upheld those convictions and, on the State's appeal, convicted the husband of murder, with life imprisonment (paras 3-4).

Court's Findings

The marriage and the unnatural death at the matrimonial home within nine months were admitted; the post-mortem doctor found internal neck injuries, including a fractured hyoid bone, and gave throttling as the cause (para 34). He rejected the epileptic-fit suggestion: there was no lock-jaw or displaced tongue, and a fit could not cause such injuries; both courts below found that defence false and concocted (paras 35-36). No accused denied being in the house, and the husband said he was with his wife (para 37). As she was in his exclusive company, Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed on him the burden of a cogent explanation; instead he set up a plea the medical evidence refuted (para 38). Relying on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that this failure, with the false defence, completed the circumstantial chain and proved murder (paras 39-40). The death fell well within seven years of marriage (para 42). The deceased's brother's evidence of beatings, starvation and a threat to kill her over dowry was corroborated by her father, the marriage mediator and two neighbours; the Section 113-B presumption stood unrebutted (paras 43-44).

Legal Principle

When a wife dies an unnatural death at home in her husband's exclusive company, Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires him to give a cogent explanation of how she died. A false defence that the medical evidence refutes is an additional incriminating link that can complete the chain of circumstantial evidence (paras 38-40).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling shows how much a false explanation can cost an accused in a death inside the matrimonial home. Once the wife's unnatural death in her husband's exclusive company was shown, the Court treated his medically disproved epilepsy account as a further link proving murder, not as a neutral gap in the prosecution case (paras 38-40). An innocent explanation offered at the police station or at trial should therefore be tested against the post-mortem findings before it is advanced. On dowry death, compare Ajmal Beg; on circumstantial evidence, Sulender.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 39
Where an offence is committed in secrecy inside a house, the prosecution’s burden is of a comparatively lighter character and Section 106 of the Evidence Act casts a corresponding burden on the inmates to give a cogent explanation; applied to hold that the husband, in his wife’s exclusive company when she died, had to explain her death, and that his failure to do so, with a false defence, completed the chain of circumstances.