The Madhya Pradesh High Court has acquitted a Guna woman almost a year after she was arrested for her son’s murder, saying the court rejected the closure report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that acquitted her by misinterpreting evidence that showed he died by suicide.
Alka Jain was arrested in March last year, weeks after the death of her 15-year-old son. Her husband, Anupam Jain, demanded a fair investigation and accused the police of poor investigation, prompting the formation of the Special Investigation Team. The Special Investigation Commission concluded that the couple’s son died by suicide and was not murdered. The special court submitted a closure report in May 2025 to acquit Alka Jain, but it was rejected by the court.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke of the Supreme Court quashed the case against Alka Jain on Tuesday and acquitted her of all charges. He cited the court’s findings based on the forensic report, which stated that the cause of death was strangulation before death, and the presence of subconjunctival hemorrhage in the eyes of the deceased. Judge Phadke said this was treated as an indication of strangulation. “…the said finding is not based on a proper appreciation of the medical evidence,” Justice Phadke said.
He added that the court of first instance reached a definitive conclusion regarding strangulation based only on the medical feature. “Such a conclusion is not supported by the expert evidence available on record [but] Rather, it is negative about it. …The expert report clearly indicates that subconjunctival hemorrhage, as noted in the post-mortem report, is a common feature of both hanging and strangulation.
Justice Phadke said that the presence of such symptoms could not be treated as a definitive indication of suffocation alone. “Despite this clear expert opinion, the trial court failed to consider the matter and proceeded to make an adverse finding, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence and expert evidence on record.”
Justice Phadke criticized the lower court, saying its approach reflected a lack of application of reason and misinterpretation of physical evidence. “Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial court is based on [an] The assumption is directly contradicted by the expert report. Hence, the impugned order suffers from legal impotence and is legally bad, being deviant and unsustainable.
He added that the conclusions of the court of first instance are based on assumptions and speculation and are not acceptable or conclusive from a legal standpoint. “…continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in [the] “The absence of any substantive material despite being exonerated in the SIT report and the final report would amount to an abuse of the legal process and lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
