Husband Is Protector Of His Wife; Threshold Of Explanation & Responsibility On Him Is On Higher Pedestal: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a man who was accused of killing his wife in the year 2015.

A Criminal Appeal was preferred before the Lucknow Bench against the Judgment of the Trial Court by which the accused husband was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary remarked, “So far as the facts in the instant case are concerned, it was duly proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. It has also been proved that the deceased was last seen together with the appellant, who was her husband. It is the appellant, who had taken the deceased along with him in the evening and the very next day early morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the close vicinity, from where she was last seen together along with the appellant. The appellant, being the husband of the deceased, is presumed to be the protector of his wife and as such the threshold of explanation and responsibility is on a higher pedestal than a normal person.”

The Bench added that the time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen together with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the accused with regard to the circumstance under which and when the accused had departed from the company of the deceased is a very crucial circumstance proved against him.

Advocates Neeraj Singh and Akhilendra Kumar Goswami appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while AGA Umesh Verma appeared for the Respondent/State.

Case Background

As per the prosecution case, the informant i.e., mother-in-law of the Appellant filed a written tehrir, stating that the Appellant-accused was married to her daughter i.e., the deceased. In March 2015, the accused brought his deceased wife to the informant’s house and after dropping her, took the informant for attending a family wedding. After dropping the informant at the venue of the said wedding, the accused returned back to the informant’s home and stayed with his wife therein and thereafter, left the informant’s house on the same night, along with the deceased carrying her jewellery and cash on a motor cycle.

Next morning, the informant received an information that the deceased was found lying dead in a wheat field. Upon receiving this information, informant along with other family members arrived and found ligatures marks on her daughter's neck, indicating a strangulation. The informant alleged that the accused along with the help of someone strangulated her daughter and then dumped her body in the wheat field. It was further alleged that the accused was having an affair with another woman, which led to the said incident. Hence, a case was registered against the accused and thereafter, the Trial Court convicted him. This was under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… it cannot be concluded with certainty that the appellant had any love affair with the said “Guddi”. However, having affair with “Guddi” held as not proved, does not as a corollary mean that there does not exist any motive.”

The Court said that the motive could not be substantially proved by the prosecution, however, there is always a presumption that the husband is custodian of the wife.

“He is the protector and is required to maintain his wife properly and with huge degree of dignity. Therefore, it is the appellant-husband, who owes a responsibility and an explanation as to in what circumstances the dead body of his Wife-Anita could be found in the nearby village”, it emphasised.

The Court noted that it is true that even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution cannot depend on the false alibi or unproven defence plea since the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the prosecution case and the onus never shifts to the accused; however, in such circumstances where prosecution has been able to prove on the basis of cogent evidence the presence of the accused at the crime scene, as in the present case, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to explain the circumstances of his presence or his non presence or atleast an explanation, as to what happened after he was seen at his in-laws’ village or he left his in-law’s village.

“The appellant apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various incriminating evidence presented during the trial, chose not to adduce any evidence to explain these circumstances. Thus, his silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the prosecution and according to this Court becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances”, it remarked.

The Court further said that a foundational fact was built successfully by the prosecution and thus, a duty was cast upon the Appellant to show and explain the evidence which has been brought against him.

“It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position, that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused, as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him”, it elucidated.

The Court also observed that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.

“Having regard to the oral evidence of the witnesses, the motive for such a crime had also surfaced, although it remained inconclusive to some extent and which this Court finds to be not fatal to the prosecution story, in the wake of other corroborative evidence against the appellant. The corroborative evidence with regard to the C.D.R., broken bangles and the Inquest report showing the status of the body, also substantiated the case of prosecution”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the Appellant for causing murder of his wife, beyond a reasonable doubt and the possibility of any other person being responsible for the death being ruled out, it can be safely said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the Appellant.

“This Court has further noticed that the appellant did not participate in the ‘panchayatnama’ also, which shows the conduct of the appellant post-crime is under suspicion and a relevant fact under Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act; Further, there has been no explanation as to why despite the prolonged absence of his wife, the appellant did not make any substantive effort to ascertain her whereabouts, nor filed any complaint which reflects a lack of due diligence on his part, considering the pious duty inherent in a marital relationship”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Jitendra Pal v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:79401-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Neeraj Singh, Akhilendra Kumar Goswami, Akash Dikshit, and Rajesh Kumar Sharma.

Respondent: AGA Umesh Verma

Click here to read/download the Judgment