Introduction
The Allahabad High Court has recently upheld a life sentence in a wife-murder case. The court treated the husband as the wife’s “protector.” It held that once it is established that he was the last person seen with her, his duty to explain what happened becomes much heavier. The ruling emphasises that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the husband’s silence or vague denials may itself strengthen the prosecution’s case.
Facts of the Case
On March 9, 2015 the husband, the appellant, took his wife to her maternal village. A witness said he saw him take her away on his motorcycle around 6 PM and that he said they would return shortly. They never returned. The next morning the wife’s body was found in a wheat field in a nearby village. Medical evidence showed she died by strangulation. The trial court convicted the husband in 2017 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He challenged the conviction in the High Court.
What the Court Says
A bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Avdhesh Kumar Chaudhary affirmed the conviction. The court found the prosecution’s facts credible and consistent, there was no inherent improbability or mutually contradictory testimony.
Given that the case relied on circumstantial evidence, the court treated the “last seen together” fact as a key link. Once that link was proved, the husband bore a heavier burden to explain what happened.
The court held that under Section 106, when a fact lies especially within a person’s knowledge, he must explain it. A husband is presumed to be his wife’s protector and custodian. His failure to explain how and when they parted company, especially given the proximity between his last seeing her and the discovery of her body, added a crucial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against him.
The court noted that the husband gave no explanation under Section 313 CrPC, he simply denied the evidence. His silence and failure to produce any explanation strengthened the prosecution’s case. The court also weighed his suspicious post-crime conduct, he did not cooperate in the inquest (panchayatnama) and made no effort to search for his missing wife despite her prolonged absence.
Implications
This judgment clarifies how “last seen together” facts carry special weight when tested with Section 106. In cases involving spouses, the husband’s explanation must meet a higher standard than for a normal person. Silence or vague denials may work to the prosecution’s advantage.
The ruling sends a strong message that in disappearance-to-death cases involving spouses, courts may draw adverse inferences from lack of explanation, especially when the body is found soon after the couple was last seen together.
It may encourage prosecutors to rely more confidently on circumstantial evidence when a spouse is last seen with the deceased. At the same time, it warns accused persons, especially husbands, that failing to explain their actions under Section 106 can amount to self-incrimination and contribute to conviction.
