Failure To Explain Wife’s Death Inside Matrimonial Home Attracts Burden U/S. 106 Evidence Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction

The Division Bench, in the appeal had to adjudicate on the issue that whether the appellant’s act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, or, considering the sudden quarrel, lack of premeditation and intention, and the impulsive nature of the act during a domestic dispute, it instead amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.

Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani upon re-examination of the evidence, observed, “Once the fundamental fact of homicidal death is established beyond reasonable doubt, the burden to explain the circumstances inside the house, which were within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant, shifts to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant having come forward with the theory of suicide, it was incumbent upon him to substantiate the same. The plea of partial hanging and self-cutting of the dori/string/rope by the deceased is not only improbable but is falsified by the FSL report which shows that the knife recovered from the appellant (chhapu) bore no dori/string/rope residues and the cuts were inconsistent with a single person cutting while suspended items on wooden horse undisturbed plastic chair unstable for balancing body weight while cutting beam height and dori/string/rope length insufficient for effective suspension no disarrangement suggesting struggle or support taken. The appellant’s failure to offer any plausible explanation in his Section 313 statement further strengthens the chain of circumstances”.

“The prosecution has independently proved the homicidal nature of the death through the medical evidence horizontal ligature mark with fracture of thyroid cartilage, petechial haemorrhages, absence of salivary dribbling, absence of oblique upward mark corroborated by the scene of offence panchnama and FSL findings, as appreciated by the learned sessions Court. The learned sessions Court rightly held that the ligature mark being transverse/horizontal and continuous low in neck in strangulation vs. oblique/upward in hanging, the thyroid fracture, ecchymosis and muscle congestion, and froth from nose without dribbling align with homicidal strangulation per standard texts in Medical Jurisprudence”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate Maharshi V Patel appeared for the appellant and Ronak Raval, APP appeared for the respondent.

As per the alleged facts, the prosecution case was that the deceased woman died inside the matrimonial residence shared exclusively with her husband. The case was further strengthened by medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence suggesting that the death was not suicidal but homicidal. Further, family members testified about persistent matrimonial discord and frequent quarrels between the spouses. Independent neighbours also deposed that loud shouting and commotion were heard from the couple’s quarters shortly before the incident.

The Court noted that the post-mortem examination revealed clear indicators of strangulation rather than hanging. The forensic scene examination further showed circumstances inconsistent with suicide, including an unstable chair, insufficient height for hanging, hair entangled in the ligature material, and physical features indicating staging after death.

The Bench reiterating the settled principle on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, categorically noted, “This Court finds that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 operates only after the prosecution has first discharged its primary burden under Section 101 by establishing a prima facie case proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the facts and circumstances proved on record. The provision does not relieve the prosecution of its fundamental duty, nor can it be invoked to fill gaps in the evidence. It is only when the prosecution proves foundational facts from which guilt can reasonably be inferred, and the accused then asserts or relies upon any specific fact or circumstance (such as suicide or any exculpatory explanation) especially within his knowledge, that the explanatory burden shifts to him to prove or satisfactorily explain that fact… The appellant's failure to offer any plausible explanation for the occurrence within his special knowledge further strengthens the prosecution case”.

“…in the present matter the prosecution has successfully discharged its initial burden by leading cogent medical, forensic and ocular evidence establishing homicidal strangulation and staging of suicide. The defence of suicide is an afterthought and is not supported by any evidence. The appellant’s conduct of immediately lodging a false report and his evasive behaviour at the hospital are consistent only with guilt and the desire to screen himself from punishment. The learned sessions court has therefore rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC for intentional murder during the quarrel, with full knowledge that dori/string/rope strangulation was likely to cause death. The sessions Court acquitted on Section 182 IPC, holding the accidental death report was in self-defence without proved mens rea to mislead, which finding is not challenged by the State”, it noted further.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were upheld.

Cause Title: Pareshbhai Shankerbhai Taviyad v. State Of Gujarat [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:21965-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Maharshi V Patel, Kruti M Shah, Advocates.

Respondent: Ronak Raval, APP.

Click here to read/download the Judgment