Supreme Court: Convictions for murder, dowry death and cruelty upheld

The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal of Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav and co‑accused, affirmed the convictions under Sections 302, 498‑A and 304‑B of the Indian Penal Code, thereby rejecting the petitioners’ challenge. The judgment also upheld the conviction under Section 34 IPC for common intention and ordered the appellants to surrender.

Ramkishan Jadhav married Vimalbai in May 1995. The complainant endured continuous dowry harassment from the husband, his father‑in‑law Digambar and brother‑in‑law Venkat. In February 1996 she was discovered strangulated, and the post‑mortem report recorded asphyxia caused by throttling. The trial court convicted the husband for murder under Section 302, the three accused for dowry death under Section 304‑B and for cruelty under Section 498‑A, reading the offences in conjunction with Section 34 IPC. The appellants contended that the evidence was purely circumstantial and that the statutory presumptions of Sections 106 and 113‑B of the Evidence Act were inapplicable.

The Court examined the medical finding of throttling, noted that the husband failed to satisfy the burden of explanation imposed by Section 106, and rejected his claim of an epileptic seizure as implausible. It observed a consistent pattern of dowry‑related cruelty establishing the presumption of Section 113‑B, and held that the circumstantial evidence met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed, bail bonds were cancelled and the appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the balance of their sentences.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 1187).