Supreme Court of India
GOUR ACHARJEversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 535
- Decided
- 25 May 2026
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The death was a homicidal hanging, and the appellant’s failure to provide a plausible explanation renders him guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Summary
The appellant, Gour Acharjee, was convicted for the murder of his wife Soma Acharjee, who died after being subjected to severe dowry-related torture. The prosecution alleged that Soma was beaten, sustaining head and chest injuries, and subsequently hanged to simulate suicide, while the defence claimed a voluntary suicidal hanging. Medical evidence showed ante‑mortem injuries inconsistent with self‑inflicted hanging, indicating homicidal hanging. The Court reiterated that when a crime occurs within the privacy of a house, the occupants must provide a cogent explanation, and the appellant failed to do so under Section 313 CrPC. Applying the principles from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan and other precedents, the Supreme Court upheld the trial and High Court findings and dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant’s apprehension.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death was a homicidal hanging staged as suicide.
- Whether the appellant, as an occupant of the matrimonial home, bore a burden to explain the injuries and circumstances of death.
- Whether the medical evidence of ante‑mortem injuries negates the defence of voluntary suicide.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304B, s. 34, s. 498A
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether, in a case of death occurring within the absolute privacy of a matrimonial home, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a homicidal hanging staged by the appellant-husband after an assault—thereby shifting facts to the husband—or whether it was a case of voluntary suicidal hanging as claimed by the appellant. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant, was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was tormented and tortured
Subjects
MurderDowry deathTormentTortureDowryHarassmentSuicideHomicideBurden of proofPrivacy of homeForced reconciliationAnte-mortem injuriesSuicidal hangingStaged suicidal hanging
Judgment
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 604 : 2026 INSC 535
Gour Acharjee
v.
The State of Tripura & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2014)
25 May 2026
[Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether, in a case of death occurring within the absolute privacy
of a matrimonial home, the prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a homicidal hanging
staged by the appellant-husband after an assault—thereby shifting
the burden of explaining the special facts to the husband—or
whether it was a case of voluntary suicidal hanging as claimed
by the appellant.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim-deceased, wife of appellant,
was subjected to dowry demand by her in-laws – She was
tormented and tortured – Victim died within about fifteen
months of marriage – The complainant received information
that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself – FIR
was registered u/ss.498A, 304B and 34 – However, the trial
Court framed charges u/ss.498A and 302 of IPC r/w s.34 –
Trial Court convicted Appellant (A1), appellant’s mother (A2),
appellant’s brother (A3) and acquitted appellant’s father (A4) –
The High Court confirmed the conviction of A1, however,
acquitted A2 and A3 – A1 has filed this appeal against his
conviction:
Held: 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 is not ordinarily capable of being self-inflicted – This
fact substantially undermines the defence version of suicide –
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 – There is
* Author
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 605
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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 – Further, summary of other
relevant prosecution witnesses give 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 – The
medical opinion clearly points to simulated hanging or homicidal
hanging – 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 – In the present case, PW-14
clearly states of the presence of the appellant when the body of
the deceased was found hanging – When confronted with the
circumstances u/s.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 – Appellant directed to be taken in custody.
[Paras 11-13, 25, 28, 31, 32]
Case Law Cited
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006] Supp. 7
SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology [Twenty-third Edition];
Dr. C.K. Parikh’s Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
[Fourth Edition] – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Murder; Dowry death; Torment; Torture; Dowry; Harassment;
Suicide; Homicide; Burden of proof; Privacy of home; Forced
reconciliation; Ante-mortem injuries; Suicidal hanging; Staged
suicidal hanging.
606 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1803 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2012 of the Gauhati
High Court in CRLA No. 58 of 2009
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Atiga Singh, Ms. Purvat Wali, Sagun Srivastava,
Sourabh Dahiya, Abhishek Jaiswal.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Subhro Sanyal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 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.
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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 607
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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 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 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 including the written submissions. We have also perused
the original trial Court records.
608 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 609
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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)
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: -
610 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 611
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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.”
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.
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 deposed that the deceased did not make any complaint
612 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 613
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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 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.
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.
614 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 615
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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 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
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.
616 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 617
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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:
“(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
618 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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,
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
[2026] 6 S.C.R. 619
Gour Acharjee v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
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)
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.
620 [2026] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search