Supreme Court of India
RAVIversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 170
- Decided
- 9 February 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- PANKAJ MITHAL
Holding
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Summary
The appellant Ravi was convicted of murdering his first wife Jamni by strangulation based largely on circumstantial evidence and hostile witness testimony. The prosecution's case relied on a Zero FIR, a post‑mortem report indicating asphyxia, and the recovery of a rope, while key eyewitnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act imposed a burden on the accused. It held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appellant, who had been in custody for over ten years, was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act imposes a burden on the accused to explain the manner of death in the present case.
- Whether the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC creates any presumption of guilt.
- Whether the hostile testimony of key witnesses can be disregarded without prejudice to the prosecution's case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
MurderCircumstantial evidenceBurden of proofStrangulationHostile witnessFormal witnesses
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 526 : 2025 INSC 170
Ravi
v.
The State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2025)
10 February 2025
[Pankaj Mithal* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
the High Court convicting the appellant-husband for the murder
of his wife.
Headnotes†
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Burden of proof –
Prosecution case that brother of the deceased lodged FIR
that his sister was murdered by her husband-appellant in
connivance with his second wife, and that his other sister-
neighbour of the appellant, had seen the appellant committing
the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with a rope
and had threatened her not to disclose anything – Appellant
also brought the dead body from his village to the native
place of the brother of the deceased – Courts below convicted
the appellant for murder of his first wife by strangulation –
Correctness:
Held: Complainant, his sister, and cousin of the deceased declared
hostile witnesses and prosecution left with the formal witnesses,
doctor who conducted the post mortem and Inspector who carried
out the investigation – Discarding the evidence of the witnesses
who turned hostile, the evidence of the doctor and the Inspector do
not conclusively establish the cause of the death – Circumstances
do not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant rather gives
sufficient room to form a different opinion – On the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant cannot be
completely ruled out – Courts below completely lost sight of the
statement of the appellant recorded u/s.313 CrPC – Appellant in
his statement categorically stated that the deceased had died a
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 527
Ravi v. The State of Punjab
natural death as she was suffering from chronic tuberculosis – It
was for the prosecution to have sought re-examination of the doctor
conducting the post-mortem, however the prosecution completely
failed to produce evidence to prove his guilt of the appellant
beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence – Evidence on record gives ample leverage for two
conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances, the benefit of
doubt to be given in favour of the appellant – Impugned judgment
set aside – Appellant in jail for over ten years, as such directed to
be released – Penal Code, 1860 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313. [Paras 17, 19, 24-27]
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC
116; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10
SCC 681; Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (2024) SCC OnLine
SC 757 – referred to.
List of Acts
Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal
Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Murder; Circumstantial evidence; Burden of proof; Strangulation;
Hostile witness; Formal witnesses.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
633 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 1650 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Surbhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Madhumitha
Kesavan, Ms. Ronika Tater, T. Mahipal, Surya Kamal Mishra,
Rishabh Thakur, Aditya Kaul, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G., Karan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
528 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-accused Ravi has been convicted by both the courts
below for the murder of his first wife Jamni by strangulation. Therefore,
the present appeal.
3. The appellant was living in the village Madh, Amritsar by constructing
a jhuggi in an open space, where he was working as a labourer. He
used to live with his deceased wife Jamni, his second wife Soma
and his two sons born from the first wedlock. They all had been
living together as such for over 10-12 years.
4. The incident is of 22.08.2014. According to the case of the prosecution,
Chaina Ram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased lodged a Zero FIR
at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan on 22.08.2014
stating that his sister Jamni with her husband i.e., appellant, was
living at Rayya Mandi, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab.
On the night of 22.08.2014 at about 11:00 pm, she was murdered by
her husband in connivance with his second wife Soma. The husband
of the deceased i.e., the appellant, brought the dead body from his
village Rayya Mandi to village Gujjuwas in a truck. In the FIR, he also
stated that his sister Rajo was residing in the neighbouring jhuggi of
the appellant and she, herself, had seen the appellant committing
the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with a rope and
that he threatened her from disclosing anything about it to anyone.
5. The aforesaid FIR was transferred to the Police Station, Khilchian,
Amritsar, Punjab and the dead body of the deceased was also taken
there, where the memo of panchnama was executed and the post-
mortem was conducted.
6. The panchnama on record reveals that it was conducted at village
Rayya Mandi, Police Station Rayya, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District
Amritsar, Punjab, i.e., the place where the appellant was living in a
jhuggi. The said panchnama, apart from other things, records the
marks of injury on the body of the deceased and reports that there
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 529
Ravi v. The State of Punjab
were marks of ligature around the neck and the mouth was open
with tongue protruding outward.
7. The post-mortem report states that in the opinion of the doctor, the
deceased died of asphyxia caused by hanging and that there were
ligature marks on the neck.
8. The prosecution, to prove the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence,
examined seven witnesses which included the brother of the deceased
Chaina Ram (PW-1), her sister Rajo (PW-2), her cousin Deep Chand
(PW-3), the doctor who conducted the post-mortem Dr. Mohan Lal
Meena (PW-5), retired DSP Bagla Ram (PW-6), Inspector Rachhpal
Singh (PW-4) and Inspector Amolak Singh (PW-7).
9. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Though, the sister of the deceased, i.e., Rajo (PW-2) is said to be
an eye witness, she had not seen the commission of the crime. She
was simply a resident of the neighbouring jhuggi and as such, may
have had the first-hand information.
10. It is an admitted position that after the death of the deceased, the
appellant, i.e., her husband carried her dead body on a truck to the
native place of the brother of the deceased Chaina Ram (PW-1)
and the sister of the deceased Rajo (PW-2) had accompanied him.
Chaina Ram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased who had lodged
the complaint in his testimony, accepted that her sister was married
to the appellant and they were residing in Rayya Mandi. However, he
was not aware of what actually happened on 22.08.2014 and stated
that her sister died due to her illness. He categorically stated that
the appellant was not responsible for her death. The said witness,
as such, was declared hostile.
11. It may be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid witness
admitted his signatures on the Zero FIR (Exh. PW4/1) but went on
to state that he had signed a blank paper and did not know what
was written there.
12. A pursual of the Zero FIR reveals that it is a computerized FIR and
is not in the handwriting of the aforesaid witness. It only bears his
signatures at the relevant place on both the pages of the Zero FIR.
13. The sister of the deceased Rajo (PW-2) was also declared hostile
as she stated that there was no dispute between her sister and
her husband i.e. the appellant and that she died due to illness and
530 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
breathing problems. Similarly, the cousin of the deceased Deep
Chand (PW-3) was also declared hostile as he expressed ignorance
as to what had actually happened on 22.08.2014.
14. In view of the aforesaid three witnesses turning hostile, the prosecution
was left with the formal witnesses, namely, Dr. Mohan Lal Meena
(PW-5) who conducted the post-mortem, the police officer/retired
DSP Bagla Ram (PW-6) who registered the Zero FIR at Churu,
Rajasthan, the SHO/retired Inspector Racchpal Singh (PW-4) who
registered the formal FIR (Exh.PW4/2) and Inspector Amolak Singh
(PW-7) who carried out the investigation.
15. Dr. Mohan Lal Meena (PW-5), in his testimony, stated that he
had conducted the post-mortem. The deceased had died due to
asphyxia caused by hanging which is established by the ligature
marks appearing on her neck. The death may have occurred two
to five days prior to the post-mortem. In cross-examination, this
witness accepted that, though the cause of death is asphyxia, it can
be caused by chronic tuberculosis also and that the appearance
of ligature marks on the neck might be due to the long journey of
the dead body from one place to another. The above testimony of
PW-5, thus, in no certain terms, establishes that the deceased died
of asphyxia due to hanging or strangulation inasmuch as he had
also opined that the death may be due to chronic tuberculosis. He
had also explained the possibility of the ligature marks on the neck
to be on account of the long journey and not solely due to hanging
or strangulation.
16. The Inspector Amolak Singh (PW-7), who carried out the investigation,
simply states that he had conducted the investigation and had
arrested the appellant. On appellant’s disclosure, he discovered
the rope which was used in the commission of the crime. However,
in cross-examination, he admitted that similar ropes were easily
available in the market.
17. Now, if we discard the evidence of the witnesses who turned hostile,
the crucial evidence with which we are left with is that of the doctor
conducting the post-mortem (PW-5) and that of the inspector
conducting the investigation (PW-7). The evidence of the aforesaid
two, if read together, would only reveal that they have conducted the
post-mortem and the investigation respectively. The doctor opined
the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging with ligature marks
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 531
Ravi v. The State of Punjab
on the neck but in the cross-examination admitted that the ligature
marks could be on account of the long journey of the dead body and
that the cause of death of the deceased can also be due to chronic
tuberculosis. Therefore, his evidence does not conclusively establish
the cause of the death. Even the evidence of the Inspector (PW-7)
does not establish beyond the shadow of doubt that the rope which
was recovered by him was the same rope with which the crime may
have been committed as similar ropes were easily available in the
market. Nothing much turns upon his evidence as well.
18. In a leading case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra1 this Court laid down 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
all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
19. If we apply the above principles, the circumstances of this case, in
no way, conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant rather it gives
sufficient room to form a different opinion. On the basis of the above
circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant cannot be
completely ruled out.
20. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon Trimukh
Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra,2 wherein it has been held that
in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there is a corresponding
burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation
about the manner of the commission of the crime. Therefore, Learned
counsel for the State argued that in view of Section 106 of the Evidence
Act, it was for the appellant to have explained the circumstances
under which the deceased died as the crime had occurred within
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
2 (2006) 10 SCC 681
532 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the four corners of a house i.e. jhuggi and he alone had knowledge
as to what had happened inside at the time of the crime.
21. The above argument may appear to be of some substance but if we
look into the law deeply, we would find that the initial burden is upon
the prosecution to first prima facie establish the guilt of the accused
and then only the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the
circumstances as contemplated by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
22. A three judge Bench of this Court in Anees v. The State Govt. of
NCT 3 has elaborately considered the principles of law governing the
applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and has held that
the court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal
cases with care and caution. The ordinary rule which applies to
criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by the
provisions contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The
said provision cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the
prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances pointing to the
guilt of the accused. The said provision cannot be used to support a
conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving
all elements necessary to establish the offence. In other words, the
prosecution does not stand absolved from its initial liability to prove
the offence and it is only when such an onus is discharged and a
prima facie case of guilt is made out that the provisions of Section
106 of the Evidence Act may come into play.
23. It has further been emphasized in the above case that Section 106 of
the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could
be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the guilt of the accused and not
otherwise.
24. This apart, the courts below have completely lost sight of the statement
of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure4. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,
on being asked if he had anything further to say, categorically stated
that the deceased had died a natural death as she was suffering
3 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 757
4 In short ‘CrPC’
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 533
Ravi v. The State of Punjab
from chronic tuberculosis for which she was under treatment at
Beas hospital. Once the appellant had disclosed about the aforesaid
illness of the deceased and her treatment in a particular hospital, it
was for the prosecution to have sought re-examination of the doctor
conducting the post-mortem so as to ascertain as to whether the
deceased was actually suffering from chronic tuberculosis, though
he may have opined that the death may be due to asphyxia caused
due to tuberculosis. The prosecution failed to do so or to produce
any other independent evidence in this regard to dislodge the version
of the appellant.
25. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case,
we are of the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to
produce evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the
shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. Rather
the evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting
opinions, and in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be
given in favour of the appellant.
26. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2019
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
is liable to be and hereby set aside and the appeal deserves to be
allowed.
27. The appellant is not on bail as per the reports on record. He is in jail
and as per the custody certificate, he has been in jail for six years
and two months as on 05.01.2021, meaning thereby that he is in
jail for over ten years as of today. Accordingly, he is directed to be
released from custody immediately.
28. Before parting, we record our appreciation to the valuable assistance
rendered by the legal aid counsel Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate,
who had appeared for the appellant and ably assisted by learned
counsel, Ms. Surbhi Bhardwaj.
29. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search