17 June 2025 Legal Updates

Mere Absconding Not Proof Of Guilt, But Relevant Conduct Under S.8 Evidence Act: Supreme Court

(a) Case Title: 

• Chetan v. State of Karnataka

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:  

• 30 May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 

Key Facts:

The appellant, Chetan, was convicted for the murder of Vikram Shinde on 10 July 2006. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory, recovery of the murder weapon (a double-barrel gun), and forensic evidence.  Allegedly, the deceased owed Chetan ₹4,000 and had insulted him during an argument. However, the exact monetary transaction was not conclusively proven. Multiple witnesses testified that Chetan and Vikram were last seen together on the night of the incident. 

The gun (belonging to Chetan’s grandfather) was recovered at Chetan’s instance.  Ballistic reports confirmed the gun was used to fire the fatal shot. Pellets and wads recovered from the deceased’s skull matched the gun.  A gold chain belonging to the deceased was found in Chetan’s possession.  Chetan fled after the crime and misled investigators about his whereabouts, which the Court considered as evidence of guilt. 

Legal Issues: 

• Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence (last seen theory, motive, recovery of weapon) was valid? 
• Whether the time gap (3 days between last seen and recovery of the body) weakened the prosecution’s case? 
• Whether the ballistic and forensic evidence conclusively linked Chetan to the crime? 

Court’s Observations & Decision:

1. Circumstantial Evidence:

• The Court reiterated the principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) that the circumstances must be fully established. They must point conclusively to the guilt of the accused.  The chain of evidence must be complete and consistent with no other reasonable hypothesis. 

2. Last Seen Theory: 

• The Court held that even though there was a 3-day gap, the forensic evidence (gun, pellets, wads) filled the missing links. The deceased was not seen with anyone else during this period. 

3. Absconding & False Statements:

• Chetan’s act of hiding and misleading authorities was held as conduct indicating guilt (Section 8, Evidence Act). 

4. Motive:

• While not fully proven, the Court held that motive is not essential if other circumstantial evidence is strong.

Final Decision:

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and Section 404 IPC (Misappropriation): Conviction for gold chain recovery upheld, but Nokia mobile phone recovery was given benefit of doubt. 

UNSUBSTANTIATED SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATION AGAINST HUSBAND, FATHER-IN-LAW AMOUNTS TO MENTAL CRUELTY: MADRAS HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• V. Rajesh v. S. Anupriya

(b) Court:

• Madras High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Sakthivel

Facts

1. Rajesh (husband) and Anupriya (wife) married on September 16, 2015. A male child Vignesh born on July 27, 2016. Marital conflicts arose leading to two separate petitions:

• Husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights

2. Husband's Allegations

• Wife lived with him only 51 days in 2 years after marriage. Wife refused to live with his parents, demanded separate residence. Wife was quarrelsome, verbally abusive, and threatened suicide. Wife filed false police complaints including sexual harassment allegations against husband and father-in-law. Wife's conduct amounted to cruelty causing mental trauma

3. Wife's Defense

• Left marital home due to security concerns and lack of facilities. Stayed at parents' house for child's medical treatment convenience. Faced sexual harassment from father-in-law. Filed complaints due to genuine harassment, not false allegations. She is willing to resume marital life for child's welfare

4. Family Court Decision (December 16, 2023)

• Dismissed husband's divorce petition. Allowed wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Found husband's allegations unproven and concluded wife had not committed cruelty

High Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court reversed the Family Court's decision, holding:

1. On Police Complaints:

• The wife filed serious sexual harassment allegations against husband and father-in-law but later withdrew them, claiming some averments "crept in without her knowledge"

2. Burden of Proof:

• Wife failed to reopen complaint or seek investigation when husband didn't reunite as promised

3. Mental Cruelty:

• Unsubstantiated defamatory allegations of sexual nature caused stigma and mental agony, constituting cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act

4. WhatsApp Evidence:

• Court rejected husband's WhatsApp screenshot evidence as he failed to prove the sender's identity

Final Judgment

Allowed husband's appeal for divorce. Dismissed wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Granted decree of divorce. Maintained wife's right to claim maintenance (₹25,000/month continuing). Protected child's maintenance rights.

Key Legal Principles

1. Mental Cruelty:

• Unsubstantiated defamatory allegations can constitute mental cruelty sufficient for divorce

2. Burden of Proof:

• Party making allegations must take steps to prove them; withdrawal without investigation weakens credibility

3. Electronic Evidence:

• Digital evidence like WhatsApp messages requires proper proof of authenticity

4. Maintenance Rights:

• Divorce doesn't automatically terminate maintenance obligations

5. Best Interests of Child:

• Court considers child welfare while deciding matrimonial disputes