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 BackgroundThe 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 PartiesIt 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 HelpThe 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 AppellantIt 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...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags