Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband for offences under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC, while affirming the finding that the deceased wife was murdered and later hanged to portray the incident as suicide. The Court strongly reflected on the repeated societal tendency to send women back into abusive marriages despite persistent complaints of dowry harassment, observing that “Hopefully, the story of her life will be an eye-opener for many.”
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from the death of a young married woman inside her matrimonial home following persistent allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. An FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 of the IPC after the deceased’s family alleged that she was repeatedly tortured over demands for a motorcycle and cash, leading to several village panchayat interventions and compromise attempts. The prosecution's case was that although the death was projected as suicide by hanging, medical evidence revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries and indicated that the deceased had been assaulted before being hanged to simulate suicide. The Trial Court convicted the husband and his relatives under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC, though the High Court later acquitted the mother-in-law and brother-in-law while maintaining the husband’s conviction. Challenging the concurrent findings holding him guilty of murder and cruelty, the husband approached the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Husband argued that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the case was one of suicide rather than homicide. The Counsel contended that the evidence led by the prosecution was inconsistent and that several prosecution witnesses had either turned hostile or failed to support material aspects of the prosecution's story. The defence also attempted to challenge the reliability of the neighbour’s testimony and questioned the prosecution’s version regarding the discovery of the alleged weapon. The Counsel further argued that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the Appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, contending that the medical evidence conclusively disproved the theory of suicidal hanging. The prosecution argued that the deceased had consistently complained about dowry harassment and physical cruelty by the appellant, which stood corroborated by multiple witnesses and village panchayat interventions. The Counsel further submitted that the appellant failed to explain the homicidal injuries found on the deceased’s body, despite the death having occurred inside the matrimonial home where he was present. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act and settled principles governing custodial deaths within the privacy of a house, the State argued that the burden had shifted upon the Appellant to provide a plausible explanation, which he completely failed to discharge.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. V. Viswanathan observed, “Could the life of young Soma Acharjee have been saved? Did the fear of societal opprobrium result in Soma being thrown to the wolves? These questions will remain hypothetical. Within a few days after her marriage, the deceased, Soma, was subjected to immense torture on account of demand for dowry. She repeatedly made entreaties to her parents to save her and even came to her parental home and stayed with them for a few days. However, every time she raised the issue, efforts were made only to effect a patch-up and send her back to the matrimonial home. Village elders were involved and even resolutions were passed after effecting a purported compromise. Soma’s near and dear naively believed that somehow -somehow- the situation will turn for the good. A false sense of optimism engulfed them. Their hopes were betrayed when Soma met with a tragic end at her matrimonial home. Hopefully, the story of her life will be an eye-opener for many.”
The Bench held, “Significantly, the injuries found on the body of the deceased are not consistent with an ordinary case of suicidal hanging. The existence of ante mortem injuries on different parts of the body of deceased Soma is not ordinarily capable of being self-inflicted. This fact substantially undermines the defence version of suicide.” The Court further observed that authoritative medical jurisprudence recognises that where signs of assault or struggle are found on a body later discovered hanging, the possibility of “simulated hanging” cannot be ignored. The Court concluded that the medical evidence clearly established that the deceased had been assaulted prior to death and was subsequently hanged to create a false appearance of suicide.
The Court observed, “the medical evidence indicates that the deceased has been subjected to violence prior to her death thereby negating the theory of voluntary suicidal act.” The Bench further held, “Hence, we have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the trial Court and the High Court that the death was due to the head injury and that the deceased was put on hanging.” While affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Apex Court found the postmortem evidence decisive in disproving the appellant’s plea of suicide and establishing homicidal death beyond doubt.
The Bench further emphasised, “It is well settled that if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house, though the initial burden to establish the case would be on the prosecution there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the victim succumbed.” Referring extensively to the decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that in cases involving deaths inside the matrimonial home, the husband cannot remain silent when incriminating circumstances point towards his presence and involvement. The Court noted that the appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the injuries suffered by the deceased, which became an additional incriminating circumstance against him.
The Court held, “When confronted with the circumstances under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant did not choose to offer any explanation. The appellant did not endeavour to discharge the burden and to explain the injuries on the deceased by offering a plausible explanation. His defence that it was a case of suicide has been belied by the overwhelming medical evidence.” The Bench further noted that even if the aspect relating to recovery of the hammer was excluded, the prosecution's case still stood firmly established through medical evidence and surrounding circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appellant’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC, along with the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court held that once the prosecution establishes homicidal death within the matrimonial home and the accused fails to explain the incriminating circumstances, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act operates strongly against the accused. The Bench further reiterated that persistent evidence of dowry harassment, coupled with medical evidence disproving suicide, can form a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Tripura, to immediately constitute a team to apprehend the appellant, who was reported to be absconding.
Case Title: Gour Acharjee Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. V. Viswa
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Diksha Rai
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. Shuvodeep Roy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
