Raj HC acquits Bikaner man of wife’s murder, rules circumstantial chain and dowry evidence not proved

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a Bikaner man of killing his wife for dowry. The Court held that the prosecution could not prove every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma gave this ruling on 16 April 2026, reversing a 2019 life sentence.

The case goes back to 5 March 2016. On that day, Ramlal of Loonkaransar, Bikaner filed a written report at the local police station. He said his daughter Gayatri had been killed for dowry by her husband Magha Ram and his family. He alleged that 15 to 20 days before her death, Gayatri had been beaten over dowry demands.

Ramlal had married two daughters — Sarita and Gayatri — to two brothers from the same family. Gayatri’s muklawa had taken place about four years before her death.

The police registered FIR No. 49/2016 under IPC Sections 498A, 304-B, and 302 — for cruelty, dowry death, and murder. In 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Harassment), Bikaner acquitted Magha Ram of dowry death under Section 304-B. But he was convicted of cruelty and murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine

Senior Advocate J.S. Choudhary, appearing for Magha Ram, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness. Counsel submitted that the trial court had wrongly used Section 106 of the Evidence Act to fill gaps in the prosecution case. That provision requires the accused to explain facts within his own knowledge — but only after the prosecution first proves its case.

Counsel added that the axe was picked up from an open firewood pile 30 feet from the body, not on the accused’s disclosure. The FSL report also showed Group A blood on the axe and shirt, but the deceased’s own clothes were never blood-typed — so no match could be drawn.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that Gayatri had been tortured for dowry, with demands for a motorcycle and Rs 1 lakh. The incident had taken place inside Magha Ram’s home. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Prosecutor argued, it was for the accused to explain how his wife died inside his own dwelling. The FSL report tied him to the crime.

On Section 498A, the Court held that conviction needs specific proof of a chain of cruel acts, not general statements. The bench relied on Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 2078) for this principle.

The evidence on dowry was contradictory. Ramlal spoke of a “demand for money”. His brother Bhanwarlal spoke of Rs 1 lakh and a motorcycle. Gayatri’s mother Mohini Devi said her daughter was taunted for being “dark” and unwanted. Three neighbours, in their police statements, had neither seen any quarrel nor heard any dowry demand.

Gayatri’s own sister Sarita, married to Magha Ram’s brother and living in the same house, told the court that her husband did not harass her. She also admitted: “if Gayatri had not died, no case would have been filed.” The niece Saroj said the same thing. The Court observed that when two other women from the complainant’s family lived in the same household without any dowry complaint, singling out Gayatri was difficult to accept. Cruelty was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

On the murder charge, the Court applied the five-point test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Each link in a circumstantial chain must be independently proved, and the chain must exclude every reasonable explanation except guilt. That test, the bench held, had not been met.

The axe was recovered from an open firewood pile, not on the accused’s information. The FSL report showed Group A blood on his shirt, but no blood group was ever established for Gayatri’s clothes — so no match could be drawn. Citing Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 217), the Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s words:

“Even if the FSL report shows that the blood found on the shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant matches that of the deceased, such finding would by itself not be incriminating in the absence of other cogent and corroborative evidence.”

In plain terms, forensic science alone cannot do the prosecution’s job.

On Section 106 Evidence Act, the Court was firm. The provision only shifts the explanation burden after the prosecution has first made out a prima facie case. The bench cited Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 460) and Ravi v. State of Punjab (2025 INSC 170). It held that Section 106 cannot be used to cover the prosecution’s own failure.

There was no evidence placing Magha Ram at home on the night of the murder. His counsel had said he had gone to fetch his sister from another village — and the prosecution offered nothing to disprove this. The family dwelling had rooms housing his parents, brothers, Sarita and her children. Any loud sound in one room would be heard in the next. No family member had reported hearing anything unusual that night.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence dated 13 September 2019. Magha Ram was acquitted of both Sections 498A and 302 IPC on the benefit of doubt. The bench directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Under Section 437-A CrPC, he was asked to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with a surety of like amount for six months. This bond will require him to appear before the Supreme Court if the State files an appeal.

Case details