The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) acquitted a woman earlier sentenced to life imprisonment for her husband’s murder, ruling circumstantial evidence was insufficient and rejecting the claim that marriage alone proved she was present during the incident.
CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman previously convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband.
The Court determined that the circumstantial evidence against her was insufficient. It notably dismissed the argument that the woman must have been present with her husband in their home at the time of his death, simply because they were married, suggesting this alone did not imply her involvement in the incident.
The prosecution had relied on this theory to assert that the woman failed to adequately explain how her husband died, despite presumably being in the house when it occurred. This absence of explanation led them to draw a negative inference against her, concluding that she likely murdered him.
However, a Division Bench comprised of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Dhanabal stated that one cannot assume the woman was necessarily present with her husband merely due to their marital status. This fact needs corroboration through witness testimony, as the Court indicated.
The Court remarked,
“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 also highlighted that many witnesses in the case had turned hostile and there was no testimony supporting the prosecution’s case that the woman had killed her husband.
The Court therefore overturned the conviction of Selvi, who had received a life sentence from a trial court in Virudhunagar for the alleged murder of her husband, Chellapandi.
It emphasized that the prosecution is obliged to establish foundational facts in cases based on circumstantial evidence before it can shift the burden of proof onto the accused.
The Bench further noted that if these foundational facts are not established, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to when a specific fact is known to a person, placing the burden of proof on them cannot be invoked to infer wrongdoing against the accused.
The ruling on March 4 stated,
“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 Court also asserted that this provision should not be used to alleviate the prosecution’s responsibility to prove that the accused committed the alleged crime.
The Bench remarked,
“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,”
According to the prosecution, Selvi had engaged in an illicit relationship with another man, leading to a confrontation with her husband, who confronted them. It was alleged that on September 29, 2017, while Chellapandi was asleep, Selvi struck him with a grinding stone, causing fatal injuries.
Based on these allegations, the trial court convicted Selvi of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing her to life imprisonment.
However, the High Court determined that the case was solely dependent on circumstantial evidence and found the chain of circumstances to be incomplete.
Many prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s father, turned hostile during the trial, meaning that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused was not substantiated.
The Court noted that the prosecution had only succeeded in establishing a possible motive the strained relationship between Selvi and her husband due to her alleged extramarital affair.
The Court pointed out.
“At 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,”
Furthermore, the Bench identified significant flaws in the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen together” theory, which suggests that the person last seen with the deceased may have played a role in their death.
The Court ruled,
“In this case, 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 (the accused wife),”
The Court further noted that the trial court had convicted Selvi solely by resorting to Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
It stated,
“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,”
Given the gaps in the circumstantial evidence, the Court concluded that the conviction could not stand.
As a result, it overturned the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Virudhunagar, acquitting Selvi of all charges.
Selvi was represented by advocate Jothibasu, while the State was represented by advocate Thiruvadikumar.
Case Title: Selvi Vs State
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE