Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 535
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1803 of 2014
Gour Acharjee ……. Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors. ……. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. V. Viswanathan, J.
1. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.05.25
17:20:15 IST
Reason:
parental home and stayed with them for a few days.
Page 1 of 25
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.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of
the judgment dated 24.08.2012 in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 58
of 2009 passed by the High Court of Gauhati, Agartala Bench.
By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the
judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West
Tripura, dated 03.06.2009 by which the appellant was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (and to
pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-) for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3
Page 2 of 25
years for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
Appropriate default sentences were also imposed.
3. Along with the appellant (A1), appellant’s mother Arati
Acharjee (A2), appellant’s brother Nitai Acharjee (A3) and
Appellant’s father Bimal Acharjee (A4) were tried together.
Though the Trial Court acquitted A4, Bimal Acharjee, the
father, it convicted the mother and brother along with the
appellant. They have also since been acquitted by the High
Court and the State is not in appeal.
BRIEF FACTS:-
4. The deceased is Soma Acharjee, wife of the appellant.
She died on 16.06.2007. The prosecution was set in motion by
a First Information Report lodged on the very same day at
around 12:15 hours by PW-7 Swapan Acharjee, the father of
the deceased. According to the FIR, about fifteen months
ago, the deceased was given in marriage to the appellant.
The deceased was subjected to dowry demand by her in-
laws and was tormented and tortured. FIR states that the
Page 3 of 25
panchayat had to intervene and the daughter was taken back
from the parental home to the matrimonial home on several
occasions. The complainant avers that on 16.06.2007, he
received information that his daughter committed suicide by
way of hanging herself. Suspecting that the in-laws were
responsible, he lodged the FIR which was registered for
offences under Section 498A, 304B and 34 of IPC.
5. The Trial Court, however, framed charges against the
accused under Section 498A and 302 of the IPC read with
Section 34. At the Trial, the prosecution examined 15
witnesses and marked several exhibits. The accused were
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No witness was
examined by the defence.
6. We have heard Ms. Diksha Rai, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, learned counsel for the
State. Both counsels very ably presented their respective
points of view. They exhaustively took us through the
records of the case. We have considered their submissions
Page 4 of 25
including the written submissions. We have also perused the
original trial Court records.
HOMICIDAL NATURE OF DEATH:-
7. The Trial Court and the High Court had no difficulty in
concluding that the accused died a homicidal death. PW-
13, Dr. Bhanu Bhusan Deb, who was posted as Medical
Officer at Boxanagar Primary Health Centre conducted the
postmortem on 16.06.2007. He was also examined at the
Trial. We have perused the postmortem report and his
deposition. PW-13 reiterated the contents of the post mortem
report which was as follows:-
“On 16-06-08 (sic) I was posted as MO at Boxanagar PHC.
On that day I conducted post mortem on the dead-body of
Soma Acharjee as was identified by Pintu Kr. Sarkar and
others. On physical examination of the dead-body I found
the following injuries :
1. 1/2" X '1/2" small haemotomma over sternum (front
middle portion of chest)
2. 1/2" X 1/2" sized small haemotomma over right
angle of the mandible (right side of the face jaw)
3. 1/2" X 1/2" sized haemotomma over occipital area.
No typical ligature mark was seen. A flat depressed
measuring 3" X 5" (U shaped) over left side of neck was
found. No abrasion or acchimosis on that area was seen .
Page 5 of 25
There was depressed fracture of the scalp. No cervical
vertribae fracture was seen . The details about the
injuries · seen in the thoarax region, abdomen and muscles,
bones and joints are mentioned in the report, at pages 2 &
3. More detail description about the external and internal
injuries is mentioned in the report.
From the external and the internal injuries observed
during the post mortem examination in my opinion, the
cause of death was head injury caused by blunt weapon
like hammer. This opinion is mainly based on the
injury No.3 above mentioned, which resulted in
congestion of the effected areas. The consequent
depressed fracture of occipital area caused pita, dora,
arachnoids of matter of that effected area getting
congested. The brain tissue of the effected area was
also congested.
The patient was later on put on hanging so it was a case
of homicidal hanging. The basis of this conclusion is that
there was no typical hanging ligature mark, on the left
lateral side of neck where skin tissues were pressed with
an area of 3" X 5" (U shaped) where no abrasion or
acchimosis was seen. This was indicative of circulatory
failure. There was no inflammatory sign seen. The
person was dead and so called pressed area was below
the thyroid cartilage. There was no congestion seen in
conjunctiva, eye lids, face, nose, oropharynx, laringo-
pharinx and tongue which are generally seen in a case of
hanging. Tongue was not also protruded. There was no
vaginal discharge. No fecal matter was seen in the
annus, which are generally seen in a typical hanging
death case .
OPINION OF DOCTOR AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH
From the above findings, I am in the opinion that the lady
was died due to head injury caused by blunt weapon like
hammer and then she was put on hanging. So, this is a
case of homicidal hanging . ”
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 6 of 25
8. We are amply supported here by the literature on
medical jurisprudence. In this case, the doctor (PW-13), has
noticed injuries on the chest, jaw and on the head of the
deceased. There was no typical ligature mark. Further,
there was no abrasion or ecchymosis near the skin tissue on
the left lateral side of the neck. No inflammatory sign was
seen. No congestion was seen in conjunctiva, eyelids, face,
nose, oropharynx, laryngopharynx and tongue. The tongue
was not protruded. There was no vaginal discharge and no
fecal matter was seen in the anus.
9. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
[Twenty-third Edition], dealing with the characteristics of
death by hanging, it is set out as under: -
“However, one can safely say that death was due to
hanging, if, in addition to the cord mark, there was
dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth, ecchymoses and
slight abrasions around the ligature-mark, laceration of the
intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood
within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia,
besides if there are no evidence of a struggle, scratches and
nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning.”
10. Equally informative is Dr. C.K. Parikh’s Text Book of
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology [Fourth Edition]. The
Page 7 of 25
learned author dealing with the attributes of hanging and
how it was not uncommon to kill a victim and suspend the
person’s body elucidates as under: -
Whether death was due to hanging:
“ It is not uncommon in
India to kill a victim and then suspend his body (postmortem
hanging) from a tree or rafter to mislead the relatives and
the police. In such a case, a ligature mark is usually found.
Therefore, when a person is found dead and his body
suspended, no opinion can be given from the ligature mark
alone. Death could be attributed to hanging if one finds (1)
a ligature mark with petechial haemorrhages and
ecchymoses into its substance (2) dribble-marks of saliva
(3) tear of the intima of carotid arteries with extravasation of
blood within their walls (4) congestion and haemorrhage in
the lymph nodes above and below the ligature mark, and
(5) absence of fatal injuries and poisoning.”
Again, dealing with injuries in the case of a person found
hanging, the learned author sets out as follows: -
“ Injuries: When injuries are present on bodies found
hanging, several possibilities exist for their causation. They
might be suicidal, such as cut throat, cuts of the wrists, etc.
They could also be homicidal, the individual having
been beaten to death and then subsequently hanged to
make it appear as a case of hanging. The nature of the
injuries will help in many cases. As for example, fractures
of multiple ribs, several contusions all over the body, and
rupture of viscera can only be homicidal. It should be
remembered that accidental injuries may be sustained due
to violent convulsions which may precede death when the
body of the person may strike the nearby wall or furniture.
Postmortem injuries such as fractured limbs or ribs may
occur when the ligature is cut and the body falls from a
height or during attempts at resuscitation.”
Page 8 of 25
11. 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. As demonstrated earlier,
treatises on medical jurisprudence recognised the fact that
where signs of assault or struggle are found on a body, later
discovered hanging, the possibility of a case of simulated
hanging cannot be lightly disregarded. In the present case,
the medical evidence indicates that the deceased has been
subjected to violence prior to her death thereby negating the
theory of voluntary suicidal act.
12. 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.
Page 9 of 25
SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT PROSECUTION
WITNESSES:-
13. Dhiraj Biswas (PW-1), who was the Upapradhan of South
Kalamchura village speaks about the deceased having talked
about the torture by her appellant-husband for the delay in
the delivery of a motorcycle that was demanded by him. He
also speaks about a compromise being effected and how she
went back to the house of her husband after a resolution
(Ex-1) was drawn up. He also speaks about the death of the
deceased about 20 days after the said resolution. PW-1
deposed that upon hearing the news of the death, he
immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and saw the
dead body hanging.
14. Pintoo Kumar (PW-2), who was a neighbour speaks
about how Swapan Acharjee (PW-7)-father of the deceased-
Soma had come to him complaining of trouble between the
deceased Soma and her husband-appellant. He also speaks
about how he advised PW-7 to go to PW-1. He further
reiterates the meeting and the resolution passed. PW-2
Page 10 of 25
deposed that the deceased did not make any complaint
against any other person except her husband – the appellant.
This witness on the aspect of the discovery of the hammer
stated that he was asked to sign a seizure list by Sub-
inspector-Nirpati Bhushan Das. The witness was declared
hostile. The witness in the cross-examination by the public
prosecutor denied that deceased Soma informed him that all
four accused persons tortured her and demanded
motorcycle and money. He further denied that after
motorcycle was given, the deceased informed him that the
appellant tortured her.
15. Ranu Das (PW-5), speaks about the panchayat and the
resolution passed as spoken to by PW-1. In the cross-
examination, PW-5 submitted that, according to their
understanding, the deceased and the appellant doubted
each other about their character. PW-5, in cross-examination
denied the suggestion that the deceased Soma did not inform
in the meeting of the villagers about her husband torturing
her. She further denied the suggestion that the parents of the
Page 11 of 25
deceased did not inform her that the deceased was being
tortured by the appellant. Haripada Nama (PW-6), like PW-2,
did not support the prosecution on the seizure of the
hammer.
16. Swapan Acharjee (PW-7), the father of the deceased,
deposed that after two months of the marriage, deceased
Soma informed him that she was being tortured by her
husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law for delivery of
the motorcycle immediately and for payment of cash amount;
that he immediately sent the T.V. set and sought time for the
delivery of the motorcycle; that after seven days, deceased
Soma rang him up and informed that she was being assaulted
and tortured by the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-
law for failure to deliver the motorcycle; that he conveyed
that within seven days the appellant could come and take
delivery of the motorcycle, and that he went to Agartala
purchased a motorcycle and delivered it to the appellant.
PW-7 further deposed that within four days, there was a
phone call from the deceased informing him that she was
Page 12 of 25
being tortured for the cash amount. That on hearing this, he
went to the house of the appellant and thereafter informed
the matter to PW-5 and ultimately attended the meeting at
the house of PW-1.
17. PW-7 further deposed that the meeting ended with
Soma being advised to stay with the husband; that after two
days, deceased Soma again called over phone and informed
about the torture by the husband, mother-in-law and brother-
in-law; that there was a further meeting in the house of PW-5;
that again she was advised to stay with the husband; that
within four days of the second meeting, the deceased rang
up to say that the torture had become unbearable; that within
a fortnight, a third meeting was held; that in this meeting also
deceased Soma expressed her inability to stay in the house
because of the prolonged torture by the appellant, brother-
in-law and mother-in-law, and that he was helpless since he
had met all demands.
18. PW-7 deposed that after 15 days the appellant went to
the house of PW-7 with the deceased and left her there; that
Page 13 of 25
the deceased informed him that she was severely assaulted
by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in the absence of
the husband. That he learnt from PW-5 that the appellant had
disposed of the motorcycle and left for Bihar; that after about
a month the appellant came to his house and asked the
deceased to accompany him to Bihar; and that the appellant
on being advised to think over the matter left alone.
19. PW-7 deposed that he contacted the Upapradhan and
PW-2 with regard to the return of Soma; that again a meeting
was held on 27.05.2007 which both families attended. That at
the meeting, the deceased cried and complained of torture.
That PW-2 took the initiative to settle the matter and asked
the appellant and his brother to seek pardon and to promise
that they would not torture Soma and that Bimal Acharjee and
Arati were also advised to ensure that there was no torture.
PW-7 deposed that the resolution of the meeting was
reduced into writing and signatures of both sides were
taken.
Page 14 of 25
20. PW-7 stated that it was decided in the meeting that if
there was further torture, the matter would be taken up as
per law; that after the meeting, the deceased accompanied
the accused to their house and that on 16.06.2007, the
appellant informed him over phone that the deceased Soma
had committed suicide by hanging. He deposed that
thereafter he went to the Police Station and filed a complaint;
that with the police he went to the house and found the dead
body hanging from the roof in a room on the southern side
and that as the body was being brought down he saw a black
spot on the neck and another on the chest. PW-8, wife of PW-
7 and mother of the deceased, also deposed on the same
lines as her husband.
21. PW-12-Titan Das is the neighbor of the appellant. He
deposes to the effect that about a year and a half back, one
morning around 7.00 AM, when he went to the house of the
appellant to bring a pen he found the dead body of Soma
hanging from the ceiling. He deposed that he cried and
returned home and did not see anybody in the room. He was
Page 15 of 25
declared hostile and cross-examined with regard to his
previous statement that he had seen the appellant lying on
the bed and about how he asked the appellant to deliver the
pen and, thereafter, on seeing the body of the deceased
hanging he asked the appellant about it. He denied the
suggestion. He admitted that he had come to the court with
the accused persons. In cross-examination, he deposed that
when he saw the deceased hanging, there was still life in her
and she was moving her hands and legs.
22. PW-14 Jitendra Das is an important witness. A
neighbour of the appellant, he deposed that about one and a
half years back - two days before the death of the deceased,
he had asked Soma whether she had taken food. She stated
that her mother-in-law had not given her food and that she
had taken food elsewhere; that the next evening, on return to
his house he found the deceased sitting on the verandah and
altercation with hue and cry was going on inside the house of
the appellant and that even at 11.00 PM, the deceased was
sitting on the verandah. That around 1.30 AM, he heard cries
Page 16 of 25
and that the following morning around 6.35 AM, he heard the
cries of Soma - the deceased saying “Ma... go” twice. That
after 3-4 minutes, he heard the cries of PW-12, Titan Das; that
he came out and asked Titan Das as to what happened and
Titan Das told him that Soma had committed suicide. The
witness deposed that immediately he rushed to the
appellant’s room and found the appellant lying on the bed
with face downwards on the pillow and the witness found the
body of Soma hanging from the ceiling.
23. PW-14 further deposed that he did not see any stool or
anything and he wondered how she could have hung herself.
He thereafter deposed that the body was hanging with a
piece of saree usually worn by the appellant’s mother; that
he called for appellant’s parents from the northern side room
and that police arrived about an hour later. During cross-
examination, he was confronted with his statement about how
the facts set out by him now were not part of the statement.
However, he reiterated that he had stated the same to the
police. He, however, admitted that he did not state to the
Page 17 of 25
police that he saw Soma’s body hanging with the saree of
appellant’s mother.
24. Though in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, it
was suggested that there was a boundary dispute between
PW-14 and the appellant’s family and the accused in 313
statement did refer to the same, we are not convinced that
such a dispute would by itself constitute a sufficient motive to
falsely implicate the appellant in a serious offence relating to
the death of the deceased Soma. PW-14 denied the
suggestion that he was deposing against the appellant due to
previous enmity. PW-14 is a neighbour and his presence is
natural and cannot be doubted.
25. There is clear evidence to the effect that there was
consistent torture of the deceased with regard to the demand
for dowry especially for the motorcycle and cash. Repeated
panchayats have been held, as spoken to by the witnesses
hereinabove. Even though on the same evidence, the three
other accused have been acquitted and the State has not
challenged the same in appeal, we are not inclined to acquit
Page 18 of 25
the appellant for the offence under Section 498A in the teeth
of the direct overwhelming evidence against the appellant.
IS THE APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER:-
26. The further question is whether the appellant has been
rightly found to be guilty for the offence under Section 302.
We have already found that the doctor’s evidence,
namely, PW-13, Dr. Bhanu Bhushan Dev, and the post-
mortem report (Exh.13) have been rightly accepted by the
courts below to conclude the homicidal nature of the death.
The trial Court acquitted A-4-Bimal Acharjee and the High
Court had acquitted A-2 (Arati Acharjee) and A-3 (Nitai
Acharjee) for the offence under Section 302.
27. While the trial Court acquitted A-4 since nothing
emerged in evidence against the father-in-law, the High
Court acquitted the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law on
the ground that the two were not sharing the same dwelling
hut though they were in the same compound.
Page 19 of 25
28. As far as A-1, the appellant is concerned, both the courts
are categoric that it was the appellant who was in the
dwelling unit with the deceased when she was found dead.
The medical opinion clearly points to simulated hanging or
homicidal hanging. It was the bounden duty of A-1 to put
forward a reasonable and probable cause of her death and
also to explain the injuries which the deceased sustained
prior to her death.
29. 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.
30. In the landmark judgment of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan
vs. State of Maharashtra , (2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court had
the following telling observations to make: -
“13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of
the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few
years. Cases are frequently coming before the courts,
where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of
killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are
Page 20 of 25
generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house
and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead
evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness
of the crime, would come forward to depose against
another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence
may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to
depose in court as they want to keep aloof and do not want
to antagonise a neighbourhood family. The parents or
other family members of the bride being away from the
scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give
direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused
except regarding the demand of money or dowry and
harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a
crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go
unpunished.
14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house
and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and
in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely
difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon
by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of
Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315 : (1944) 2 All ER 13 (HL)]
— quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of
Punjab v. Karnail Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
135] .) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to
lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible
to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The
duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is
capable of leading, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in
mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration ( b )
appended to this section throws some light on the content
and scope of this provision and it reads:
Page 21 of 25
“( b ) A is charged with travelling on a railway without
ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is
on him.”
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case
would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the
nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish
the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in
other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would
be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a
corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to
give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was
committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away
by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise that the burden to establish its
case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no
duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
Thereafter, in para 22, this Court emphatically laid down as
under: -
“22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed
the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in
leading evidence to show that shortly before the
commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an
explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong
circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime . In Nika Ram v. State of
H.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635 : AIR 1972 SC
2077] it was observed that the fact that the accused
alone was with his wife in the house when she was
murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the
relations of the accused with her were strained would,
Page 22 of 25
in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point
to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 3
SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435] the appellant was
prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place
inside his house. It was observed that when the death
had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an
obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause
of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with
absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent
with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with
the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in
the commission of murder of his wife. In State of
U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence
disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late
night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire
after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was
that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and
that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by
the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated
her and their relations were strained and further the
evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the
night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was
complete and it was the husband who committed the
murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this
Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting
the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC.
In State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught
fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife
were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the
accused came out in the morning through the roof when the
hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of
accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a
daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died
due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on
account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be
any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the
accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Page 23 of 25
31. In the present case, PW-14 clearly states of the presence
of the appellant when the body of the deceased was found
hanging. It was also early morning and it is believable that
the appellant would be in the house. In any event, that fact is
not denied by him because it was the appellant who
informed PW-7, though he told PW-7 that the deceased had
committed suicide. 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. Even if we discount the
aspect of discovery of the hammer that does not carry the
case of the appellant any further.
32. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands
dismissed. We have been informed that the appellant is
absconding. Now that we have dismissed the appeal, steps
Page 24 of 25
should be taken immediately to trace the appellant and take
him into custody. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
Director General of Police, Tripura, who shall immediately
constitute a team and take steps to apprehend the convict.
……….........................J.
[ PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ]
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
th
25 May, 2026
Page 25 of 25