Supreme Court Rejects 'Seizure During Intercourse' Defence; Husband's Life Term Stands
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on 2 November 2026 upheld the life imprisonment of a husband convicted of strangling his wife nine months after marriage, rejecting his claim that she died of an epileptic seizure during sexual intercourse. A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya held that the Bombay High Court was right to reverse his acquittal for murder, because he gave a false explanation for a death that occurred in the privacy of the matrimonial home.
The Court also affirmed the dowry death and cruelty convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the husband and his brother, dismissed both appeals, cancelled their bail bonds and directed them to surrender within four weeks. The appeal of the father-in-law stood abated because he died during the proceedings.
Case at a Glance
Case Title: Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2013, with Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2014
Citation: 2026 INSC 1187 (marked non-reportable)
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (judgment authored by Justice Mehta)
Date of Judgment: 2 November 2026
What Was Challenged: The common judgment of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dated 3 July 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 311 and 395 of 1998
Offences: Sections 302, 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; convictions and life sentence upheld; surrender within four weeks
The Question Behind the Headline
Can a husband escape a murder charge by saying his wife died of a seizure while they were intimate? The Supreme Court said no. The post-mortem found a fractured hyoid bone and neck injuries consistent with throttling, and the doctor ruled out an epileptic fit as the cause. With the death occurring inside the home, in the husband's exclusive company, the Court held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 placed a heavy burden on him to explain how she died. A false explanation, it held, becomes an additional link that completes the chain of circumstances.
Background
Marriage, Demands and Death
Vimalbai married Ramkishan on 12 May 1995. The prosecution alleged that soon after the marriage she was harassed and tortured over demands for a television set, a tape deck, a plot in the MIDC area and Rs. 50,000 in cash, so that her husband could get employment. On 1 February 1996, within about nine months of the marriage, she died at the matrimonial home.
Her brother Narayan (PW-2) deposed that she had complained during visits home of beatings, starvation and mental torture, and that on one occasion she was tied with a rope and lowered into a well with a threat to kill her if the demands were not met. At about 1:00 a.m. on 1 February 1996, Ramkishan told Narayan that Vimalbai was having convulsions and was being taken to Naigaon. On the way, the family found her lifeless on a bullock cart with blood oozing from her nostrils and fingers. She was declared brought dead at the Naigaon Hospital.
The Husband's Own Report to the Police
Before Narayan lodged his complaint, Ramkishan had himself gone to the Naigaon Police Station at 8:00 a.m. and reported an accidental death. He said that while he was having intercourse with his wife she felt giddy, her jaws locked and she died. An accidental death entry was made. The post-mortem by two medical officers then gave the cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling, and Crime No. 11 of 1996 was registered under Sections 302, 498-A and 34 of the IPC.
Trial Court and High Court
Six accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli. By judgment dated 21 September 1998, the trial court convicted the husband (accused No. 1), the father-in-law Digambar (accused No. 2) and the brother-in-law Venkat (accused No. 5) under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Each received one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 for cruelty and seven years for dowry death, to run concurrently. All six were acquitted of murder, and the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and co-sister were acquitted of everything.
The accused appealed and the State appealed against the murder acquittal. On 3 July 2013, the Bombay High Court dismissed the convicts' appeal. It also found the husband's acquittal for murder perverse, set it aside, convicted him under Section 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, while leaving the other acquittals under Section 302 undisturbed.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the Appellants
The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to guilt.
Vimalbai died an accidental death from a sudden epileptic seizure during intercourse.
The father-in-law and brother-in-law were roped in only because of their relationship, with no specific act attributed to them.
Three family members were acquitted on the same evidence, so the others were entitled to parity.
For the State of Maharashtra
The death was homicidal, occurred within nine months of marriage and inside the matrimonial home, in the exclusive company of the husband, so Section 106 of the Evidence Act cast a heavy burden on him.
His story of a seizure during intercourse was false and concocted, and strengthened the prosecution case.
The post-mortem by Dr. Shyam Nagapurkar (PW-1) established death by throttling, which could not be accidental or self-inflicted.
Every foundational fact for the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was proved, and no perversity justified interference under Article 136.
Supreme Court's Analysis
Why the Defence of an Epileptic Fit Failed
The Court noted it was admitted that Vimalbai died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home within nine months of marriage. Dr. Nagapurkar, who conducted the post-mortem with Dr. Gunturkar (DW-3), found subcutaneous haemorrhage over the laryngeal area, bruises over the thyroid cartilages and a fracture of the left cornua of the hyoid bone, and opined asphyxia due to throttling.
The doctor categorically denied the defence suggestion that these injuries could result from an epileptic fit, noting there was no lock-jaw or displacement of the tongue and that internal neck injuries could not be caused by a fit. The Supreme Court agreed with both courts below that the plea was false and concocted.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the Privacy of the Home
None of the accused denied being in the house at the time. The husband actually took a positive stand that he was with his wife when she died, and reported it to the police. The Court held that the fact of Vimalbai being in his exclusive company when she died assumed great significance. Under Section 106, he had to offer a cogent, credible and satisfactory explanation. Instead, he set up a demonstrably false defence that the medical evidence excluded.
The Court relied on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 and reproduced these observations:
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
A False Explanation Completes the Chain
The Court held that the failure to give a plausible explanation, coupled with the introduction of a false defence, provides an additional incriminating link that completes the chain of circumstantial evidence and establishes guilt for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Result on Murder
The High Court's reversal of the acquittal was therefore upheld, and the life sentence of the husband stood confirmed.
Dowry Death and Cruelty Under Sections 304-B and 498-A
Having held the murder charge proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court also held that the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 were proved against all the appellants. Vimalbai was strangled within about nine months of marriage, well inside the seven-year period under Section 304-B.
The Court found clear, consistent and mutually corroborative evidence of persistent physical cruelty, mental torture and starvation over dowry demands, comprising Rs. 50,000 in cash for securing employment for the husband, a television, a tape deck and the transfer of a plot in the MIDC area at village Ghungrala. PW-2 Narayan was corroborated by Sambhaji Turatwad (PW-3), the mediator, by Ramrao (PW-4), the father of the deceased, and by two independent neighbours of the parental home, Vaijnath Sambhaji Marpatwar (PW-5) and Mahajan Munjaji Yembalwad (PW-6). The Court concluded that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Operative Directions
The High Court judgment dated 3 July 2013 was not interfered with, and both appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.
The husband's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC with life imprisonment stands, along with the convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B.
The appeal of Digambar (father-in-law) stood abated as he died during the pendency of the appeal.
The bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled and they must surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court shall issue non-bailable warrants and take them into custody.
Why This Judgment Matters
Section 106 in homicides inside homes: Where a wife dies in the husband's exclusive company, silence or a false story can be fatal to the defence.
False defence as a link: A demonstrably false explanation can complete a chain of circumstantial evidence.
Medical evidence decides the defence: Specific findings such as a fractured hyoid bone were enough to exclude the seizure theory.
Appeals against acquittal: The Court did not disturb the High Court's view that the husband's acquittal for murder was perverse.
Dowry death presumption: Death within seven years of marriage, with consistent evidence of dowry related cruelty, attracts the presumption under Section 113-B.
Master Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation
Cases like this turn on charge framing, medical evidence, Section 106 and circumstantial chains. Learn how to draft and argue them with the Certificate Course on Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation by Into Legal World.
Upgrade Your Legal Career With the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course
Strong drafting is what separates good lawyers from great ones. Learn to draft pleadings, applications, notices and contracts that stand up in court with the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course by Into Legal World, built for law students and practising lawyers who want to grow their careers.
Get Daily Judgment Updates
Follow the Into Legal World WhatsApp Channel for judgment analysis, legal updates and career opportunities for law students and lawyers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband escape a murder charge by claiming his wife had a seizure during intercourse?
Not if the medical evidence contradicts it. Here the doctor found a fractured hyoid bone and neck injuries and ruled out an epileptic fit, so the Court held the defence false.
What does Section 106 of the Evidence Act do in such cases?
It places on the person with special knowledge of a fact the burden of proving it. When a wife dies inside the home in her husband's exclusive company, he must give a cogent explanation, and cannot rely only on the prosecution's burden.
What sentence did the Supreme Court uphold?
Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the husband under Section 302 of the IPC, along with the convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B.
What happened to the father-in-law's appeal?
It abated because Digambar died during the pendency of the appeal.
What must the convicts do now?
They must surrender before the trial court within four weeks of 2 November 2026 to serve out the remaining sentences, failing which non-bailable warrants will be issued.
Keywords
Section 106 Evidence Act, dowry death, Section 304-B IPC, Section 498-A IPC, Section 113-B Evidence Act, Section 302 IPC, epileptic fit defence, false defence circumstantial evidence, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, appeal against acquittal, 2026 INSC 1187, Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya.
Case Title: Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2014
Citation: 2026 INSC 1187
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Comments