Weapon Recovery Flaws, Family Rift Lead SC to Acquit Murder Convict After 26 Years

The Supreme Court on August 8, 2025, acquitted a woman convicted for murder nearly 26 years ago, citing lapses in the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, unexplained injuries to the victim’s parents, and evidence of a family dispute over partition that cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing an appeal by Shyam Kali Dubey, who along with her husband had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The allegation was that the couple beat the deceased with sticks/lathi/danda in the premises of a temple after an afternoon altercation when the appellant allegedly attempted to graze her cattle in the field of the deceased.

The prosecution case was that the deceased objected to the cattle grazing, pushed the appellant, who then struck him twice on the leg before being taken away by her son and mother-in-law, but not before threatening to return with her husband.

The alleged attack later that evening was said to have resulted in the victim’s death.

The Court recorded that PW-6, the doctor, found 13 injuries on the deceased and opined that the cause of death was “acute circulatory failure and asphyxia, due to regurgitation of blood in bronchus and trachea” and “due to the head injury caused by a hard and blunt object.”

In cross-examination, the doctor stated that the autopsy was conducted at 4 pm on March 24, 1999 and that death could have occurred between 10 pm and 12 midnight on March 23, 1999, whereas the prosecution alleged the incident took place at 7 pm in the presence of multiple eyewitnesses.

The bench noted: “We specifically noticed this since the incident, as the prosecution alleges in front of a number of eyewitnesses, was stated to be at 7 O’clock in the night.”

It added that PW-7, the deceased’s father, claimed to have witnessed the assault and heard the victim naming the accused but this was inconsistent with the time of death fixed by medical evidence.

The Court also pointed out that the deceased’s body was found in the courtyard of his own house, not at the alleged scene of the crime. “When the incident occurred at 7 O’clock, there is no explanation as to why the injured victim was taken to the house and not to the hospital,” the bench said.

On the recovery of weapons, the Court observed that a danda allegedly recovered from the appellant and spoken of as blood-stained “was not sent for any chemical examination… [and] was also not confronted to PW-6, the Doctor to get his opinion whether the injury which led to the death could have been caused by the said weapon.”

A further “very disturbing circumstance,” according to the Court, was the injury found on the body of the father and mother of the deceased. PW-6, who conducted the autopsy, also examined them the same day and found “incised wounds… caused by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe or a knife” and opined they “could have been self-inflicted.”

The father admitted in cross-examination that there had been a quarrel over partition, that his son had been abusing and threatening him, and that other children were sent away due to such threats. The Court observed: “This has to be looked at, in juxtaposition with the unexplained injuries on the body of the father and mother of the deceased; which the prosecution ought to have explained.”

While agreeing with the general proposition that related witnesses are not necessarily “interested” witnesses, the bench found the present case distinguishable: “In the present case, a defence is setup of an enmity between the victim and his family… Admittedly, there were unexplained injuries on the parents of the victim which were also caused by a cutting weapon… There is also no clarity as to the time when the death was occasioned, so as to garner support from the medical evidence.”

It found the dying declaration improbable, noting that none of the other alleged eyewitnesses, except PW-7, actually witnessed the attack; others only saw the accused fleeing with sticks.

“The fact that the body was found in a different place from the scene of occurrence; at the house of the deceased, the unexplained injuries on the body of the father and mother of the deceased, the admitted dispute on partition… and the lack of clarity on the exact time of death creates a reasonable doubt,” the Court held.

Setting aside the trial court’s conviction and the High Court’s confirmation, the bench acquitted the appellant and ordered her release.

Case Title: Shyam Kali Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: August 8, 2025

Bench: Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria