The Madhya Pradesh high court has acquitted a woman from Guna almost a year after she was arrested for her son’s murder, saying the trial court rejected a special investigative team (SIT)’s closure report exonerating her by misinterpreting evidence that showed he had died by suicide.
Alka Jain was arrested in March last year, weeks after her 15-year-old son died. Her husband, Anupam Jain, demanded a fair probe and accused the police of poor investigation, prompting the SIT formation. The SIT concluded the couple’s son died by suicide and was not murdered. The SIT filed a closure report in May 2025 exonerating Alka Jain, but the trial court rejected it.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke of the high court quashed the case against Alka Jain on Tuesday and acquitted her of all charges. He cited the conclusions of the trial court based on the post-mortem report, wherein the cause of death was mentioned as ante-mortem strangulation, and the presence of sub-conjunctival hemorrhage in the eyes of the deceased. Justice Phadke said this was treated as indicative of strangulation. “...the said finding is not based on proper appreciation of medical evidence,” said Justice Phadke.
He added that the trial court drew a conclusive inference of strangulation merely based on the medical feature. “Such a conclusion is not supported by the expert evidence available on record [but] rather is negatived by it. ...the expert report clearly states that sub-conjunctival hemorrhage, as noted in the post-mortem report, is a feature commonly found in both cases of hanging as well as strangulation.”
Justice Phadke said the presence of such a symptom cannot be treated as a definitive indicator of strangulation alone. “Despite this clear expert opinion, the trial court failed to consider the same and has proceeded to draw an adverse conclusion, which is contrary to the medical and expert evidence on record.”
Justice Phadke criticised the trial court, saying its approach reflects non-application of the mind and misinterpretation of material evidence. “Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial court is based on [an] assumption and is in direct contradiction to the expert report. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and is bad in law, being perverse and unsustainable.”
He added that the trial court’s conclusions are based on assumptions and speculation and are not legally admissible or conclusive. “...continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in [the] absence of any substantive material and despite her exoneration in the SIT report and final report would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
Curated by Dr. Elena Rodriguez
