2026 INSC 522 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1063/2021

CHETAN DASHRATH GADE .… APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .…RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J

1. The present appeal arises from the impugned judgement

dated 15.03.2021 passed by the High Court of judicature at

Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2018 whereby the High

Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld

the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik wherein the

appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 302,201

r/w 34 of the Indian penal code,1860 (For short, IPC), and

sentenced to undergone life imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer two months simple imprisonment.

2. For convenience it is to be noted that the present appeal is

filed by the accused no. 1, who is the appellant here.

2

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Rupali daughter of Babasaheb Kumbharkar (P.W.1) got

married to the present appellant on 24

th April, 2012. That, she

was living in her matrimonial home along with her husband, her

in-laws and the appellant no.2 accused no.3 (younger brother of

accused no.1). In November 2012, she had conceived pregnancy.

Unfortunately, on 28th June 2013, there was intrauterine death of

the foetus due to lack of blood supply as has been disclosed by

P.W.3 Dr. Sunil Jadhav. In March 2015, she had given birth to a

baby boy in a private hospital at Pimpalgaon, Baswant.

4. On 23rd August 2015, father of the deceased Rupali i.e.

P.W.1 had called upon her father-in-law Dashrath and intimated

to him that he would come to Shindvad to fetch Rupali to her

maternal house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. However, at

about 1.30 pm, accused no.3/appellant no.2 Akshay informed

P.W.1 that his sister-in-law i.e. Rupali is no more. At about 2.50

pm, the father of the appellant Dashrath Gade approached Vani

Police Station and informed that he had been to Khambala to

participate in the 10

th day rituals of his relatives. At about 11.00

am, his elder son Chetan had informed him that his wife Rupali

had attempted suicide by hanging in their residential house but he

suspected that she had not died and therefore, he is taking her to

the Doctor. Dashrath Gade had then reached Vani Hospital and he

was informed that Rupali had died. On the basis of his report, A.D.

No.38/2015 is registered at Vani Police Station. The said report is

marked at Exh.152.

3

5. One of the relatives of P.W.1 Mr. Pawar who is resident of the

same village informed P.W.1 that Rupali had committed suicide.

The parents and relatives of Rupali had gone to the residence of

Rupali and upon inquiry, they had learnt that she was taken to

Primary Health Centre at Vani Government Hospital. They had

been to the Hospital and they had seen that there was a fresh

injury mark on the right side of her cheek and there was a ligature

mark on her neck. Due to disclosure made by Rupali to her mother

on the earlier occasions that she was being harassed and ill-

treated for failure to fetch one Tola Gold from her parents. P.W.1

approached Vani Police Station and lodged a report on the basis of

which Crime No.99 of 2015 was registered at Vani Police Station

at about 22.30. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 12

witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

6. According to P.W.1, the accused was demanding Rs. 1 Lakh

for purchase of a pick-up vehicle and that Rupali was being

harassed on that count. According to P.W.1, in the second week of

January, he had handed over Rs.1 Lakh to the father-in-law of

Rupali. From the tenor of the cross-examination, it appears that

P.W.1 had verified the economic condition of the appellants prior

to the marriage and only on realizing that their economic condition

was sound they had got Rupali married to the appellant no.1. It is

also elicited in the cross- examination that they had a wine-yard

in their agricultural land. That, they were possessing Swift car.

P.W.1 has also admitted that his economic condition was equally

good. The suggestion extended to P.W.1 shows that according to

the accused, Rupali had committed suicide. P.W.1 has deposed in

4

consonance with the FIR. It is testified before the Court by P.W.1

that when they saw the dead body at Vani Hospital, P.W.1 had

noticed that the earrings of her left ear, anklet of right leg and toe

rings in both legs were missing.

7. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

and the Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498 A

302/34 of the IPC against the appellant. The Trial Court after

appreciating the entire evidence by holding appellant guilty,

convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and

201 r/w 34 of the IPC. The appeal of appellant challenging his

conviction was also in vain, and the High Court affirmed the

findings of the Trial Court against appellant.

8. The learned Sessions Court, upon appreciation of the

evidence on record, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding

that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that they had

committed her murder in furtherance of their common intention,

while acquitting all the accused of the charges under Sections 498-

A and 304-B IPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to

establish cruelty or dowry demand; the conviction thus rested on

circumstantial evidence which, in the view of the Trial Court,

formed a sufficient basis for guilt. In appeal, the High Court partly

allowed the appeal by acquitting accused No. 3 but affirmed the

conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 under Section 302 IPC,

concurring that the death was homicidal rather than suicidal and

relying on medical evidence to infer strangulation, and held that

the circumstances were sufficient to sustain the conviction,

thereby maintaining the finding of guilt against accused No. 1

5

while extending benefit of doubt to the co-accused for offence of

murder. High court has convicted accused no. 2 for an offence

punishable under section 201 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer RI

for three years. Now the accused no.1 is the appellant herein filing

the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

9. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contended that

there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident, no motive has been

established and no evidence showing intention or common

intention of the appellant to commit murder. He further submits

that medical experts gave inconsistent opinions, one indicating

hanging, another indicating both hanging and strangulation.

Thus, the cause of death is doubtful, entitling the accused to

benefit of doubt.

10. He further contended that the High Court incorrectly

concluded strangulation, ignoring expert testimony. A suicide note

was recovered from the deceased and the handwriting expert

confirmed it to be of the deceased. The note indicates that no one

was responsible for her death. The benefit of doubt was wrongly

denied to the appellant.

11. Per contra learned counsel for the state submits, that the

Sessions Court and High Court have both examined evidence and

found the appellant guilty. Such concurrent findings should not

be interfered with under Article 136. The chain of circumstances,

when read together, points towards the guilt of the appellant. The

death occurred inside the matrimonial home, placing a strong

burden on the accused to explain.

6

12. He further submits that the post-mortem findings (fracture of

larynx/trachea, asphyxia) indicate death by strangulation, not

simple suicide. The High Court rightly relied on these factors. The

alleged suicide note is suspected to be planted or not recovered in

normal course (as per prosecution argument noted in HC findings).

The deceased died under unnatural circumstances within the

house of the accused and the appellant failed to give a satisfactory

explanation.

ANALYSIS

13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsels. The question that falls for our consideration is

whether the trial court and High Court rightly convicted the

appellant for offences under section 302 of IPC on the basis of

circumstantial evidence.

14. The appellant herein is seeking reversal of the concurrent

findings by two courts, sessions Court and the High Court. This

court in Mekala Sivaiah V. State Of Andhra Pradesh

1 held

thus:

"15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncement that

Article 136 is worded in wide terms and powers

conferred under the said Article are not hedged by

any technical hurdles. This overriding and

exceptional power is, however, to be exercised

sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of

justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal

has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by

some misapprehension or misreading of evidence

or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is

1

(2022) 8 SCC 253

7

not only empowered but is well expected to

interfere to promote the cause of justice.

16. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate

the evidence for the purpose of examining whether

the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the

trial court and the High Court are correct or not. It

is only in rare and exceptional cases where there

is some manifest illegality or grave and serious

miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or

ignoring material evidence, that this Court would

interfere with such finding of fact."

In the above case, this Court, while dealing with a Criminal

Appeal against an order of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh upheld the conviction of the accused by the Sessions

Court, and declined to interfere with the conviction.

15. This court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V . State of

Maharashtra

2 held thus:

“the five golden principles, the panchsheels of

circumstantial evidence, namely, (i ) The

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt

is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The

facts so established should be consistent with the

hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say,

they should not be explainable on any other

hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii)

The circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude

every possible hypothesis except the one to be

proved; and (v) There must be a chain of evidence

so complete as not to leave any reasonable

ground for the conclusion consistent with the

innocence of the accused and must show that in

2

(1984) 4 SCC 116

8

all human probability the act must have been

done by the accused”.

16. It is not in dispute the deceased died in the matrimonial home

and the death is unnatural. Specific case of prosecution is death

by strangulation. Both Trial Court and High Court after thorough

scrutiny of evidence on record held the circumstances and the

medical evidence are strongly suggesting strangulation they

mainly relied on circumstances of missing left ear ring, right leg

anklet and toe-rings from the fingers of the legs. As rightly

recorded by Trial Court and High Court in case of hanging chance

of missing these articles is very remote and missing of these

articles is a strong circumstance for strangulation. The Trial Court

and High Court also considered the fact that there was a fresh

injury on cheek besides ligature mark which is clearly supported

by medical evidence. Therefore, the circumstances recorded by

Trial court and High court strongly point out the guilt towards

appellant for the offence charged.

17. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as

12 witnesses. Admittedly, the case of prosecution rests on

circumstantial evidence. The witness namely, PW-1/Baba Saheb,

father of the victim in his testimony before the Court provides

certain details such as the marriage being solemnized between his

daughter Rupali and the present appellant Chetan Gade on

24.04.2012. Rupali had completed her graduation whereas

appellant studied upto 2

nd year of B.A. and was doing agricultural

work. Subsequent to the marriage, Rupali conceived and while

she was carrying pregnancy of 8 months, unfortunately the baby

could not survive in the course of natural delivery and was

9

declared dead due to intra-uterine death. Thereafter, she carried

pregnancy for the second time and the couple was blessed with a

male child and the said child was of 6 months of age at the time of

the incident. PW-1 further in his testimony before the Court stated

that his daughter told him about the ill-treatment caused at the

hands of her in-laws and the said ill-treatment led to the sour

relationships between the families. On an information received by

him about the death of his daughter, he rushed to her in-laws

house at Shindwad and made inquiry about whereabouts of Rupali

and it was informed to him that she was in the Primary Health

Centre, Vani. Then, he rushed to the Primary Health Centre and

found that his daughter was dead. He also found certain fresh

injury marks existing on her right side cheek. He found that

certain articles which his daughter used to wear namely, the

earring, toe-ring and right leg anklet were missing. It was the

complaint of PW-1 that there was a demand from the in-laws of his

daughter Rupali and as he failed to fulfil the demand, his daughter

was subjected to physical ill-treatment and was subsequently

murdered by the in-laws. In the cross-examination, PW-1 father of

deceased Rupali admitted that his economic condition was good as

he was possessing 10 acres of land and was having grapes garden.

At the same time, the economic condition of in-laws of Rupali was

equally good. The family of the accused was also doing agriculture

and they were also cultivating grapes. It may not be out of place to

state here that all the accused persons were acquitted for the

charges under Sections 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC.

18. We may now refer to the material evidence. The prosecution

had examined 5 medical officers namely, PW-3/Dr. Sunil Chindhu

10

Jadhav, PW-5/Dr. Rajendra Suresh Bagul, PW-6/Dr. Amol, PW-

9/Dr. Swampnil Madhukar Mahajan , and PW-11/Dr. Gorakhnath

Kisanrao Gore. PW-6/Dr. Amol was running a clinic namely,

Mauli Clinic and on the day of incident i.e. 23.08.2015 at about

12:45 PM, one Akshay Gade came to his clinic. Akshay Gade told

PW-6 that patient is in the vehicle and requested PW-6 to examine

the patient. As such, PW-6 had gone outside and found that a girl

was sleeping in a four -wheeler at the backside. On her

examination, he found her dead. Her pupils were dilated and he

could not find her pulse. He found one scar on her neck. He

advised to take the girl to civil hospital. In his cross-examination,

PW-6 states that the appellant Chetan was there when the girl was

brought to his clinic. He further stated that those persons who

attended his clinic were in very much haste. As per the evidence

before the Trial Court, PW-6 told the persons who visited his clinic

that the lady is dead and asked them to take her to civil hospital.

She was then brought to another private hospital namely,

Radhekishan Hospital and Dr. Swapnil Mahajan/PW -9 who was

working in that hospital examined the patient on 23.08.2015 at

1:30 pm. PW-9 found breath absent and eye lids were dilated.

Another doctor who was with him namely, Dr. Umesh declared

that the patient was brought dead. Dr. Umesh then also advised

to take the patient to civil hospital. Thereafter, Rupali’s dead body

was brought to the rural hospital. Inquest Panchnama was drawn.

The dead body was subjected to autopsy. Post-mortem started at

08:30 pm and closed at 09:00 pm. Dr. K.G. Gore, in his testimony

before the Court stated that:

11

33. ……….Deceased was 25 years averagely built

and rigor mortis was present. No signs of

decomposition. Eyes were partially opened. Sub

conjunctiva hemorrhage, Nails were cynosed.

Mouth was closed. No injuries were found in

genitals. All Limbs were extended.

In respect of surface wounds and injuries three

ligature marks were existing.

1. Ligature mark completely encircling the neck

at the little/upwards at the level of thyroid

cartilage which was 42 cm around, 1 cm in width

7 cm from the chin.

2. Ligature mark little obliquely upward 3cm in

length, extending to the right, meeting to 1st and

3rd line

3. 16 cm in length above thyroid cartilage 5 cm

below the chin. Bruise mark on left side of

mandible- first about 1 cm, second 3 cm imprint

mark of ligature.

34. All the injuries mentioned in column No. 17

were anti mortem injuries. There was no injuries

to the scalp, no skull fracture, brain was normal.

35. In case of thorax, there was fracture of hyoid

bone. Fracture of trachea. Right and left lungs

were congested. Heart was normal. Left chamber

is empty. Right chamber contain blood. There was

little 50 ml to 70 ml semi digested food (mostly

liquid.) Intestine, Lever Pancreas, spleen kidney

were congested. Organs of generations were

normal. Viscera was preserved. No fracture of

cervical vertebra. Probable cause of death was

"asphyxia due to strangulation"

12

37. Dr.G.K.Gore examined by the prosecution

being PW 11 at Exh. 137 He has corroborated

evidence of PW 5 Dr.Bagul that of 23.8.2015, he

has done PM of Rupali of which the notes are

produced at Exh.99. According to him, on

31.8.2015, he had also received one letter from

the Wani police station requesting him to inform

about period of cause of death and that letter is

Exh, 126. He opined that the death of Rupali on

23.8.2015 within 12 hours before doing that PM,

she caused death. The cause of death is asphyxia

due to strangulation given by him. He also signed

that PM notes…….. Though he has opined that in

hanging there used to come ligature marks on the

neck, upwards ligature marks are sign of hanging

and in column No.17(1) and 17(2) are going

upward. He has not mentioned directions upto

upward, but given the location of thyroi d

cartilage.

19. Though an attempt was made to submit that the allegation of

strangulation is unsustainable and the strangulation itself is

doubtful, the evidence referred to above clearly suggest that it was

not the case of an act of suicide, particularly, in view of the injury

marks found on the body of Rupali. It is also important to note that

though at the very first instance when Rupali was brought to Mauli

Clinic and PW-6 on examination of Rupali declared the patient

dead and asked the appellant as well as Akshay Gade to take the

body to civil hospital, the body was again taken to another private

hospital. There is no satisfactory explanation provided by the

appellant either for the injury marks found on the body of Rupali

or for bringing body to another hospital in spite of the declaration

by PW-6. The learned Trial Court had scrutinized the material

13

evidence thoroughly and particularly, the medical evidence is

assessed on all possible angles.

20. The learned Trial Court also considered the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. which needless to state

provides an opportunity to the accused to explain his stand qua

the accusations made against him. In the statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C., there is no explanation leave aside any satisfactory

explanation in respect of the material evidence against the

appellant. In defence, though an attempt was made to submit that

Rupali committed suicide with the help of one chit, the Trial Court

on appreciation of the evidence particularly, the handwriting

expert’s opinion found that the so-called chit had got written by

the accused forcibly prior to the strangulation. The Trial Court also

found that the material evidence brought before the Court clearly

indicated that the appellant have caused distraction of the

evidence of the offence and provided a false information that Rupali

committed suicide. It may not be out of place to state that Rupali

after her marriage was residing at her in-laws place. Death of

Rupali was in suspicious circumstances and this fact was within

the special knowledge of the appellant being her husband and the

appellant utterly failed to provide a justifiable explanation so as to

discharge the burden and this was an additional factor for the Trial

Court for holding the appellant guilty and recording the order of

conviction. The High Court in appeal could not find any error in

the judgment and order of the Trial Court as such and affirmed the

judgment and order on appreciation.

14

21. At the cost of repetition as already discussed in the preceding

paragraph the appellant could not displace the burden cast upon

him under 106 Indian Evidence Act.

22. This Court in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar

3 held thus:

“22. Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to

those cases where the prosecution has succeeded

in establishing the facts from which a reasonable

inference can be drawn regarding the existence of

certain other facts which are within the special

knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails

to offer proper explanation about the existence of

said other facts, the court can always draw an

appropriate inference.

When a case is resting on circumstantial

evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable

explanation in discharge of burden placed on him

by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such

a failure may provide an additional link to the

chain of circumstances. In a case governed by

circumstantial evidence, if the chain of

circumstances which is required to be

established by the prosecution is not established,

the failure of the accused to discharge the burden

under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is no t

relevant at all. When the chain is not complete,

falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the

accused."

23. It is trite law in the cases of circumstantial evidence when

the chain of circumstances have been adequately proved to link to

the culpability of the accused, motive is irrelevant this principle is

further echoed in the case of Mulakh Raj and Others v. Satish

Kumar and Others

4 whereas in it was held as thus:

3

(2021) 10 SCC 725

4

(1992) 3 SCC 43

15

"17..... Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial

evidences motive bears important significance.

Motive always locks up in the mind of the

accused and some time it is difficult to unlock.

People do not act wholly without motive. The

failure to discover the motive of an offence does

not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove

motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of

motive is never an indispensable for conviction.

When facts are clear it is immaterial that no

motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of

proof of motive does not break the link in the

chain of circumstances connecting the accused

with the crime, nor militates against the

prosecution case”

24. High Court considered the case law relating to principle of

circumstantial evidence and rightly applied the principle to the

facts of this case.

CONCULSION

25. We don’t find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent

findings based on evidence.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has successfully established a

complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly

points towards the guilt of the appellant and is wholly inconsistent

with any hypothesis of innocence. The medical evidence, the

attending circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased

within the matrimonial home, the conduct of the appellant

subsequent to the incident, the false defence sought to be

projected through the alleged suicide note, and the failure of the

appellant to furnish any plausible explanation in discharge of the

burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence

16

Act, cumulatively form a chain so complete as to leave no

reasonable ground for doubt. The principles governing conviction

on circumstantial evidence as enunciated in Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) stand fully satisfied in the facts of

the present case. We find no perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of

justice in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court,

as affirmed by the High Court, warranting interference by this

Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

27. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under

Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as affirmed by the

High Court, are hereby upheld

28. The appellant is at liberty to submit an application for

premature release as per the state policy and if such application is

submitted the authority to consider the same as per the prevalent

state policy

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

........................................J.

[PANKAJ MITHAL]

.........................................J.

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 21, 2026.