Husband Murder Case<\/em>: The Madras High Court<\/strong> (Madurai Bench), in a judgment delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice P. Dhanabal<\/strong>, set aside the conviction of a woman who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of her husband.<\/strong> The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances<\/strong> required in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose from an appeal filed by Selvi challenging the trial court\u2019s decision, which had convicted her under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment<\/strong>. The prosecution alleged that Selvi had an illicit relationship with another man<\/strong> and that this led to disputes with her husband. It was claimed that she attacked him inside the house during the night. <\/p>\n\n\n\n During the trial, several witnesses did not support the prosecution, and many turned hostile<\/strong>. Because of this, the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence<\/strong> and argued that since the accused and the deceased were living together, the accused had the responsibility to explain what happened<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The trial court relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and convicted her<\/strong>. However, the High Court found serious gaps in the prosecution\u2019s case and noted that the most important link \u2014 the \u201clast seen together\u201d<\/strong> theory \u2014 was never proved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clarified that Section 106 cannot be used to shift the burden onto the accused when the prosecution itself has not proved the basic facts. The judgment stated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judges further observed: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe prosecution must discharge its primary onus of proof and establish the basic facts against the accused person in accordance with law and only thereafter Section 106 of the Act can be resorted to depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Emphasising that criminal cases cannot be decided on assumptions, the Court stated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust because the parties happened to be husband and wife, the Court cannot assume that they will always be seen together.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judgment further added, \u201cEven in such a relationship, it is not a question of assumption and in law, it is a question of fact.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While the High Court acquitted the previously convicted wife due to lack of proof,<\/strong> such cases also highlight a broader concern often raised in discussions around gender and criminal law. When allegations are made against men in matrimonial disputes, courts and investigative agencies frequently proceed with immediate arrests, social stigma, and prolonged trials. In contrast, when the accused is a woman, the courts often show greater caution before confirming guilt.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n