Unlikely That Woman Would Harm Her Unborn Baby By Committing Suicide: Orissa HC Upholds Conviction Of Ex-MLA For Pregnant Wife's Murder

The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction and life-term of former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Ramamurty Gamango for murder of his pregnant wife in the year 1995 at his official residence.

While confirming the 2023's trial Court order, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –

“The conclusive nature of the evidence, including ante-mortem injuries on the deceased, the Appellant's minor injuries inconsistent with his rescue claim, and the Appellant's immediate call to the police instead of seeking medical help, collectively negates any hypothesis of innocence. Therefore, in all likelihood and based on the well-founded evidence, the prosecution has decisively proved the Appellant's guilt.”

Factual Background

The appellant used to reside with his second wife ('the deceased') and son in his official residence at MLA colony in the capital city of Bhubaneswar during the year 1995. On 29.08.1995, at about 9 AM, the appellant allegedly heard the scream of the deceased for which he rushed towards bathroom and found the same to be locked from inside and smoke was coming out.

After a while, the bathroom door was said to be broken open and the deceased was found to have been set ablaze. The deceased died instantaneously and the police was reported about the matter for which an unnatural death (UD) case was registered.

Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was found guilty for committing the murder of the deceased and was accordingly charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The trial Court found the appellant guilty under the aforementioned charges and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of murder.

Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant impugned the same before the High Court.

Contentions for the Parties

It was vehemently put forth on behalf of the appellant that there was absolutely no motive for commission of the murder and there was no rivalry or animosity or ill-feelings between the couple which could have enraged the appellant to take the drastic step.

Further the post-mortem report was referred to argue that the death was held to be due to 'asphyxia' due to inhalation of smoke. But strikingly, the doctor did not opine anything as to the nature of the death, i.e. suicidal or homicidal. Thus, it was contended that 'subeoxia' or very low oxygen concentration can occur in any fire related accidents and therefore, the prosecution theory of homicidal death lacks credence.

On the other side, the State relied upon the post-mortem examination report to suggest that the deceased was incapacitated before being murdered. It was also argued that her death was not self-immolation rather the deceased was overpowered before she was burnt.

Cry of Pain v. Cry for Help

The Court underlined the evidence rendered by the sole defence witness who claimed to have seen smoke and then heard the deceased scream “marigali, marigali” [means 'I am dying'].

“This cry of desperation holds significant weight in evaluating the circumstances surrounding her death. If the deceased had truly intended to commit suicide, as claimed by the defence, it is unlikely that she would have screamed for help while the fire consumed her. The cry “marigali, marigali” indicates a clear effort, either consciously or unconsciously, to alert others to her plight and to escape the pain of burning.”

The Bench was of the view that had the deceased intended to commit suicide by burning, her screams would have been cries of pain rather than cries for help.

“The fact that her words indicate an appeal for assistance suggests that she was not entirely resigned to death but instead was seeking to escape the situation. This distinction between a cry of pain and a cry for help is crucial. A person committed to the act of suicide would not typically call out for rescue in such a manner. Instead, the scream “marigali, marigali” reveals that the deceased was in distress and wanted to be saved, casting doubt on the theory of a deliberate, premeditated self-immolation.”

Culpability of the Appellant

It further highlighted the testimony of the defence witness who stated that the deceased restrained him from entering the bathroom and entered into it herself. The Court suspiciously viewed such conduct of the deceased and observed –

“In cases of suicide, individuals often seek to ensure solitude, minimising the chance of intervention or rescue. The act of instructing someone to wait before using the bathroom if the intent was truly self-immolation raises questions, as it inherently increases the risk of being discovered and saved.”

Though the appellant as well as the defence witness stated that they tried hard to break open the bathroom door but the forensic evidence did not find any serious dent on the door bolt. Furthermore, the Court was of the view that the appellant was in charge of the household and therefore, he was supposed to know how the fire broke out and how the deceased was set ablaze. His inability to provide any plausible explanation in that respect was viewed against him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

“These details provide important clues about the state of the scene, suggesting that while there was a fire or smoke event, no signs of disturbance or struggle were immediately visible, other than the broken glass. This evidence could be significant in determining the cause of death and the sequence of events leading up to it,” it added.

Mother Not Likely To Harm Unborn Baby

The medical evidence noted a lacerated wound on the back of the deceased's head. This particular injury was indicative of blunt force trauma which occurred prior to death. Thus, the Court held that the deceased was struck or otherwise injured before she was set ablaze. This angle further cemented the prosecution theory.

Above all, the medical evidence also indicated that the deceased was about 14-16 weeks pregnant at the time of the occurrence. The Court was sceptical about the decision of a mother to kill herself knowing well that her step shall also kill the foetus she is bearing.

“The maternal instinct to protect an unborn child is a powerful force, and it is highly unlikely that a woman in her second trimester, who was carrying a fetus would deliberately seek to harm herself or her unborn baby without a compelling cause. The absence of any evidence suggesting emotional distress, a suicidal mindset, or any circumstantial triggers that could lead a pregnant woman to take such a drastic step further diminishes the likelihood of suicide,” it observed.

Injuries & Conduct of the Appellant

After examining the injuries sustained by the appellant as well as the defence witness, the Court was of the view that those injuries are not conducive to the defence theory that they tried hard to save the deceased from the fire. Moreover, the Court also expressed surprise over the fact that instead of seeking immediate medical assistance, the appellant chose to visit the police station first, presuming the deceased to be dead.

Taking into account all the above features, the Court was of the considered view that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, it upheld the order of conviction made by the trial Court.

Slow Progress Of Trial

The Division Bench censured the trial Court for the snail's pace with which the trial progressed in the case. Though the incident happened in the year 1995, but charges were framed only in the year 2013, almost after 18 years. Examination of all the witnesses also took a considerable period and the final judgment was passed in the year 2023.

“While it appears that the Appellant may have contributed to certain delays, the trial Court's passive role in permitting such prolonged adjournments cannot be overlooked. This regrettable delay undermines the justice system's ability to uphold procedural mandates,” the Court observed.

Case Title: Ramamurty Gamango v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLA No. 715 of 2023

Date of Judgment: October 30, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. P.B. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 86

Click Here To Read/Download Order