“Her Story An Eye-Opener”: Convicting Husband For Wife's Murder, Supreme Court Warns Against Forcing Women Back Into Abusive Marriages

While upholding the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife and for subjecting her to domestic cruelty, the Supreme Court on Monday (May 25) drew attention to the societal failure to recognise the distress faced by married daughters in their matrimonial homes. The Court noted that the deceased victim's repeated complaints of domestic violence and dowry harassment were ignored or trivialised, with pressure placed on her to reconcile with her husband and resume matrimonial life.

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a case where, despite the victim repeatedly complaining to her family about being subjected to violence by her husband, her concerns were ignored by both her relatives and village elders, who urged her to return to her matrimonial home in the hope of reconciliation. She was ultimately killed, though the appellant unsuccessfully sought to portray the death as a case of suicide.

Condemning the repeated failure of the victim's family members and the village members, the Court observed:

“…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. Victim'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 Victim met with a tragic end at her matrimonial home. Hopefully, the story of her life will be an eye-opener for many.”

The Case

According to the prosecution, the victim was married to the appellant around fifteen months before her death on June 16, 2007. Her father (PW-7) stated that within two months of marriage, she complained of harassment by her husband and in-laws over demands for a motorcycle and cash. Despite the family providing a television set and later a motorcycle, the alleged torture continued, leading to multiple panchayat interventions and a written resolution warning of legal action if the harassment persisted.

Two days before the incident, neighbour PW-14 claimed victim told him that her mother-in-law had denied her food. On the night before her death, he allegedly saw her sitting alone on the verandah while an altercation took place inside the house. The next morning, after hearing cries, he entered the house and found her hanging from the ceiling while the appellant(Husband) was lying face-down on the bed.

The Trial Court and High Court convicted the Appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan found PW-14's testimony credible and natural, noting that the autopsy report found multiple ante-mortem injuries on the deceased's body, including injuries on the chest, jaw and occipital region. It also revealed the absence of classic signs associated with suicidal hanging.

“the medical evidence indicates that the deceased has been subjected to violence prior to her death thereby negating the theory of voluntary suicidal act…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.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court noted that the Appellant failed to displace the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that once the prosecution established homicidal death inside the matrimonial home and the appellant's presence therein, the burden shifted to the husband to explain the circumstances leading to the death, however, the appellant merely claimed that the deceased had committed suicide and failed to explain the injuries found on her body, which proved to an additional incriminating material against him.

“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.”, the court observed, adding that “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.”

Noting that the appellant was absconding, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Tripura, to immediately constitute a team to apprehend him.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with the sentence under Section 498A IPC, was affirmed.

Cause Title: Gour Acharjee Versus The State of Tripura & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 538

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR