Mere Presence Of Husband In House With Wife In A 'Hanging Position' Not Sufficient To Presume His Guilt: Tripura High Court

The observation came from a division bench of Justices Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh:

"The mere presence of the accused persons and the last seen of offence along with the child in the hut with the deceased woman (wife) in a hanging position cannot draw an inference and the circumstantial evidence cannot be connected that the husband has killed the wife. It is needless to observe that in a family the wife, the husband and the child who stays under one roof, any conjugal relation is obvious amongst the couple. Since it has not been proved who had killed the wife, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt."

The appeal was filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2007 petitioner got married to the deceased Sima as per social customs. The complainant who is the father of the deceased alleged that since after marriage, the accused Akhil Das subjected his daughter to cruelty. One day, the complainant came to know from his son Uttam Das that his daughter is no more alive. Accordingly, the complainant along with others visited the rented house of his deceased daughter and found his daughter in hanging condition with some blood stain in her face and nose.

The complainant alleged that accused Akhil Das murdered his daughter and after murder, he hanged her body and he committed this heinous offence due to the abatement of his brother Apurba Das. On receipt of the said complaint, FIR under section 498A /302/109 of IPC was registered.

Upon trial, the Sessions court said that though the prosecution has able to prove their case against accused Akhil Das but the evidence on record are not sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused Apurba Das had instigated Akhil Das and thereby committed any offence as charged against him. Hence, the present appeal.

Public prosecutor argued that that the medical evidence is not a conclusive proof in the present case but it has been corroborated by the statement of the land lady and the minor daughter that the accused was present in the hut. He further submitted that the corroboration, the last seen together, the special knowledge is the case of the prosecution.

Court after perusing the evidence on record noted that PW-21, who conducted the postmortem examination, is inexperienced and has no special knowledge in forensic segments and even the medical evidence has not been categorically confirmed with regard to the death of the deceased.

Therefore, the mere presence of the accused persons and the last seen of offence along with the child in the hut with the deceased woman (wife) in a hanging position cannot draw an inference and the circumstantial evidence cannot be connected that the husband has killed the wife.

In view of the above, the court opined that the prosecution has failed to make out a case against the petitioner. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

Similar Read: S.106 Evidence Act | Husband Can't Be Asked To Explain Wife's Death In Their House Unless Prosecution Establishes Prima Facie Case: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Sri Akhil Das v State of Tripura

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment