When the Body Speaks Louder Than the Defence: Supreme Court on Circumstantial Evidence in Matrimonial Murder

 The Supreme Court’s decision of Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered on 21 May 2026,2026 INSC 522, is an important reminder that a conviction for murder can rest safely on circumstantial evidence when the chain is complete, coherent, and inconsistent with innocence. The case arose out of the death of a young married woman, Rupali, inside her matrimonial home, where the defence attempted to project a theory of suicide supported by a purported suicide note, yet the medical and surrounding circumstances pointed to homicide by strangulation.

Why this judgment matters to session judges

Print Page

Whether offence under S 498A of IPC is continiuing offence?

It can thus be clearly seen that the Apex Court in clear terms had held that the offence underSection 498-A is not a continuing offence. Merely because the complainant has left the matrimonial house on account of the ill treatment by her husband and resides with her parents, cannot be a ground to bestow the court at the place where the parents reside, a jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Bombay High Court

Shekhar Shivdas Mahire vs Sou. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire on 13 April, 2010

Bench: B.R. Gavai

Citation; 2010(2) Bom C R(cri)672

Print Page

How to ascertain jurisdiction of court in offence under S 498A and Dowry prohibition Act?

 The petitioner No.1 has also challenged issuance of
process on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur contending that the
allegations, taken at their face value, would show that all the acts
necessary to prosecute the offences of cruelty and demand of
dowry had taken place at Bhopal and not at Nagpur. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.2, however, disagrees. Placing his
reliance upon the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of
Bihar and another, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1674, he submits
that when the allegations are read in their entirety, an inference
would arise that the offences of cruelty as well as illegal demand of
dowry have been continuously committed not only at Bhopal, but
also at Nagpur.
16. Upon perusal of the complaint and also the depositions
of two witnesses, I find that there is a substance in the argument of
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and no merit in the
argument of the petitioner No.1. An amount of Rs.25,000/,
which
was a part of demand of dowry, has been alleged to be paid at

Nagpur and, therefore, demand of dowry can be, prima facie, seen
to have been partly fulfilled at Nagpur. The respondent No.2 had
been compelled to leave her matrimonial house, as alleged by her,
because of afore stated cruel treatment and live at her parental
house at Nagpur. This act has been seen in the case of Sunita
Kumari as an act which made the offence of cruelty as continuing
one. Besides, there are other allegations of continuation of cruelty
even at Nagpur. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that
Nagpur Court has lost its territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.272 OF 2014
 Shri Shridhar Bandaru,
V
State of Maharashtra,


CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 19 th JANUARY, 2015 .
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2161

Print Page

Husband keeping another girl in room with wife when they are on honeymoon whether amounts to offence under S 498A of IPC?

 Section 498A of IPC reads as under :“
498A :Husband
or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty:Whoever,
being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation :For
the purpose of this section,
“cruelty means:::

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
Looking to the above clause (a) and facts
proved in the present matter, it is clear that
accused no.1 indulged in willful conduct of
keeping accused no.3 constantly with them although
he had come down for honeymoon with Shashibala.
The trial Court has rightly observed that such
acts amounted to cruelty. The just married bride
having third person young girl, declared as deemed
sister, sharing the same bed must be said to be
suffering cruelty. Such conduct of husband is
likely to drive the bride to cause grave injury to
her health affecting the mental and physical

health of the wife. The trial Court has rightly
held accused no.1 guilty under Section 498A.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 371 OF 1997
Bhupendra S/o Govardhanlal Sachdeva, V The State of Maharashtra ... 

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 6th August, 2013.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)939

Print Page