A Thane court has acquits wife and her alleged lover in a 2018 murder case, stating that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond doubt. The judge said the entire case was only based on weak circumstantial evidence.
MAHARASHTRA: A Thane court acquits wife and her alleged lover who were accused of killing her husband in 2018. The court said that the prosecution could not prove the case properly, and the entire investigation was based only on circumstantial evidence that did not form a complete chain.
The order was passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge S B Agrawal, who noted that there was not enough reliable material to hold the accused guilty.
According to the judgment, even though there were indications that the woman, Priya Gopi Naik (34), and her alleged partner Mahesh Govind Karale (32) had an extra-marital relationship and their behaviour after the incident appeared suspicious, the evidence was not strong enough to conclude that they were responsible for the murder of Priya’s husband, Gopi Kisan Naik.
Both accused were charged with murder, criminal conspiracy, administration of a stupefying substance, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution had claimed that on December 28, 2018, the accused administered a stupefying substance to Gopi Naik, murdered him, and then attempted to destroy evidence to hide the crime.
A police sub-inspector had received a call from the Civil Hospital stating that the victim had been brought by his wife, who claimed he suffered an accident inside the Waghbil tunnel. After admitting him, she allegedly left the hospital. The post-mortem later showed that the victim had head injuries caused by a blunt weapon and signs of strangulation. Based on this, a murder case was registered.
However, the judge pointed out that the entire case stood only on circumstantial evidence. The court said:
“These facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis.”
The court added:
“The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency, and must exclude every other hypothesis and chain of evidence so complete that it should not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion that is consistent with the innocence of the accused and that it must show that in all human probability the act must be done by the accused.”
The prosecution tried to establish that the extra-marital affair was the motive behind the murder. But the court noted that the evidence on this point was unclear and weak, stating that it was not shown that the deceased was aware of the affair or that he used to fight with his wife because of it.
The judge observed that the witnesses did not provide clear statements on these issues, making it unsafe to consider the alleged affair as a motive.
The court further said:
“The case of the prosecution as regards administering of sleeping pills and phenyl thus loses significance, since nothing of this sort was found in the body of the victim.”
In another observation, the judge noted that the injuries on the victim’s body actually made the defence version more probable than the prosecution’s claim of strangulation.
The court stated:
“If the comprehensive attention is paid to the injuries sustained by the victim, the defence of the accused persons is rather more probablised than the case of the prosecution as regards throttling.”
The court also pointed out that if the accused had indeed murdered the victim, there was no reason for them to take him to the hospital, as a survivor could have created more complications for them. Therefore, the prosecution could not clearly prove that the death was homicidal.
The judgment adds:
“Thus, it cannot be said that it is made out beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death and not because of falling in the bathroom or suffering an accident.”
Finally, after reviewing the entire case, the court concluded:
“Upon assessment of the entire evidence, although there is material to suggest that there was extra marital relationship between both the accused and that their conduct after the incident was suspicious, there is no sufficient material to conclude that they had committed murder of the victim or administered any stupefying substance to him or for that matter, had committed the offences alleged by the prosecution.”
Because of these reasons, both accused were acquitted.
Explanatory Table for All the Laws & Sections Mentioned in the Case
| Section / Law | Description | Relevance in This Case |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Punishment for murder – “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” | The accused were charged under murder based on allegation of killing the husband. |
| Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) | Punishment for criminal conspiracy – “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is punishable as if he had abetted that offence.” | The prosecution alleged that wife and lover conspired to kill the husband. |
| Administering Stupefying Substance (Section 328 IPC) | Causing hurt by means of any stupefying or overpowering substance – “Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person by administering to him any stupefying or overpowering substance…shall be punished…” | The case alleged that a stupefying substance was given to the victim. |
| Disappearance of Evidence / Destroying Evidence (Section 201 IPC) | Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender – “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the offence to disappear…shall be punished…” | The prosecution claimed the accused attempted to destroy evidence post-incident. |
| Standard of Proof – “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” (Judicial principle) | In criminal cases, prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion is not enough. | The court emphasised that “suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.” |
| Principle of Circumstantial Evidence | A chain of circumstances must point only to guilt, exclude other hypotheses and leave no reasonable ground for innocence. | The judgment repeatedly noted the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and pointed to the necessity of full chain. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Gopi Naik & Mahesh Govind Karale
- Bench / Judge: Principal District & Sessions Judge S. B. Agrawal (Thane).
- Factual Matrix:
- Accused: Priya Gopi Naik (34) & Mahesh Govind Karale (32)
- Deceased: Gopi Kisan Naik (husband of Priya)
- Date of offence alleged: December 28, 2018
- Allegations: Extra-marital affair between the accused; administration of stupefying substance; murder; disappearance of evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A murdered husband still gets no justice because the system demands “perfect evidence” only when the accused is a woman.
If a husband had even one percent such suspicion, he would be behind bars instantly. But when wife + lover are accused, suddenly the bar becomes “beyond reasonable doubt.”
- The court itself admitted extra-marital affair + suspicious conduct, yet acquittal happened because the investigation was weak.
Why? Because men’s deaths are not investigated with the same seriousness.
Had a wife died, the entire police machinery would work overtime.
- The husband was brutally killed — head injury + strangulation — yet the narrative shifts to “maybe he slipped in bathroom.”
This is the everyday reality of men:
Their lives are negotiable. Their deaths are explainable. Their justice is optional.
- If genders were reversed, India would have screamed “husband killed wife!”
Media, NGOs, activists — everyone would be on war-footing.
But when the victim is a man, silence becomes the default setting.
- Circumstantial evidence is enough to jail husbands under 498A or DV — but not enough to convict wives in murder cases.
This is the hypocrisy Men’s Rights activists have been shouting about for years
One standard for men. Another for women.
- The court practically said the affair existed AND the behaviour was suspicious — yet still the benefit of doubt went to the accused.
Men never get this benefit.
Men are “guilty until proven innocent.”
Women are “innocent even after suspicious conduct.”
- Police failed the husband. Prosecution failed the husband. System failed the husband.
No strong forensic work.
No chain of evidence established.
No proper motive identified.
This is why men die without justice every year — because nobody investigates their deaths seriously.
- The husband’s death was turned into a debate of “accident vs murder,” instead of being treated as a crime that deserved deep investigation.
When a man dies, everyone rushes to close the file, not solve it.
- This case proves again: Men’s safety is not a priority in India.
There are laws to protect women, laws to help women, fast-track courts for women – but when a man is murdered?
No outrage, no pressure, no national attention.
- A man’s life has become the cheapest currency in the legal system.
If the victim was a wife, the husband would be jailed within hours.
But when the victim is the husband, even suspicious wife + lover walk free due to “lack of evidence.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.