Madras HC acquits woman of husband's murder, says spouses can't be presumed to always be together inside house

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman who had earlier been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court for the murder of her husband [Selvi Vs State].

The Court found that the circumstantial evidence cited against her was weak. Notably, it rejected a theory that the woman must have been with her husband in their house when he died there since they are a married couple and, therefore, had likely played a role in his death.

The prosecution had cited this theory to argue that the woman had not given a proper explanation as to how her husband died, despite her likely having been in the house when it happened. Since she was unable to give any such explanation, the prosecution drew an adverse inference against her and concluded that she is likely to have murdered him.

However, a Division Bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal observed that it cannot be presumed that the woman was present with her husband inside the house merely because they were married. The same has to be proved through witnesses, the Court pointed out.

“Just because A1 happened to be the wife of the deceased, it cannot be assumed that she will always be present with the deceased inside the house. Some witness had to necessarily speak about her presence in the house prior to the incident or at least on the previous day,” the Court observed.

It further noted that several witnesses in this case had turned hostile and that there was no witness testimony to back up the prosecution's case that the woman had murdered her husband.

The Court, therefore, set aside the conviction of one Selvi, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in Virudhunagar for the alleged murder of her husband Chellapandi.

The Court emphasised that the prosecution must prove foundational facts in a case that rested on circumstantial evidence, before shifting the burden to prove innocence onto the accused.

The Bench added that if such foundational facts are not established, Section 106 (when any fact is specially known to a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked to draw an adverse inference against the accused.

"If this foundational fact (that the accused wife was with her husband at the time of his death) is not established (through a witness), Section 106 of the Act will not come into play," the March 4 ruling said.

The Court also stressed that the provision cannot be used to shift the prosecution’s burden to prove that an accused had committed the alleged crime.

“It is now too well settled that Section 106 of the Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution must discharge its primary onus of proof and establish the basic facts against the accused person in accordance with law,” the Bench said.

According to the prosecution, Selvi had developed an illicit relationship with another man and her deceased husband had confronted them about it. It was alleged that in the early hours of September 29, 2017, while Chellapandi was asleep, Selvi dropped a grinding stone on his head, causing fatal injuries.

Based on this allegation, the trial court convicted Selvi for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

However, the High Court found that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.

Several prosecution witnesses, including the father of the deceased man, turned hostile during trial. The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused woman was, therefore, not proved.

The Court noted that the prosecution was able to establish only a possible motive, namely the strained relationship between the accused woman and her husband, due to her alleged extramarital affair.

“At the best, the prosecution was able to establish motive on the strained relationship between A1 and the deceased since the deceased had questioned A1 and A2 about their illicit relationship,” the Court noted.

The Bench also found serious weaknesses in the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen together” theory (that the person who was last seen with a deceased person is likely to have had a role to play in their death).

“In the case on hand, there is no material available to establish the fact that A1 and the deceased were last seen together before the incident. In such an event, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against A1 (accused wife)," the Court said.

The Court further observed that the trial court had convicted Selvi solely by resorting to Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

“The trial court had convicted and sentenced A1 only by resorting to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and such finding rendered by the trial court is liable to be interfered with by this Court," it noted.

In view of the gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained.

Hence, it set aside the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Virudhunagar and acquitted Selvi of all charges.

Selvi was represented by advocate Jothibasu.

The State was represented by advocate Thiruvadikumar.

[Read Judgment]