Where a wife dies a homicidal death inside the matrimonial home and the husband fails to explain the circumstances of death or the ante-mortem injuries, an adverse inference under S.106 IEA can sustain conviction under S.302 IPC.

on

Facts

The deceased Soma Acharjee died on 16.06.2007 within about fifteen months of marriage. The prosecution case was that she was continuously tortured by the appellant-husband and his family for dowry, particularly for a motorcycle and cash. Multiple village panchayats and compromise meetings were convened after the deceased repeatedly complained to her parents about harassment and assault.

On 16.06.2007, PW-7, father of the deceased, received information that Soma had allegedly committed suicide by hanging. FIR was registered initially under S.498A, S.304B and S.34 IPC. After trial, the appellant was convicted under S.302 IPC and S.498A IPC. Though other accused family members were eventually acquitted, the conviction of the appellant-husband was affirmed by the High Court.

Issues Framed

(a) Whether the death of Soma Acharjee was homicidal or suicidal.

(b) Whether the prosecution had established cruelty and dowry harassment under S.498A IPC.

(c) Whether the appellant-husband was liable for murder under S.302 IPC.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court extensively relied upon the postmortem evidence of PW-13, Dr. Bhanu Bhusan Deb, who opined that the deceased died due to “head injury caused by blunt weapon like hammer” and that “she was put on hanging” making it a case of “homicidal hanging” (Para 7). The Court noted absence of a typical ligature mark, absence of protrusion of tongue, absence of congestion and existence of ante-mortem injuries on the chest, jaw and head (Paras 7–11).

(b) Referring to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Dr. C.K. Parikh’s Textbook on Medical Jurisprudence, the Court observed that post-mortem hanging after assault is not uncommon and the medical evidence clearly negatived the theory of suicide (Paras 8–11).

(c) On cruelty, the Court relied upon the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 regarding repeated dowry demands, torture for motorcycle and cash, repeated panchayat interventions, and complaints made by the deceased shortly before death (Paras 13–25). The Court held that there was “direct overwhelming evidence” against the appellant under S.498A IPC (Para 25).

(d) On the charge under S.302 IPC, the Court applied the principle in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra that where a wife dies inside the matrimonial home, the husband bears a corresponding burden under S.106 IEA to explain the circumstances of death (Paras 29–30). The appellant was admittedly present in the house when the deceased was found hanging and failed to offer any plausible explanation under S.313 CrPC (Paras 31).

(e) The Court held that the false defence of suicide, coupled with overwhelming medical evidence and the appellant’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased, constituted a strong incriminating circumstance (Paras 28–31).

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant under S.302 IPC and S.498A IPC. Directions were issued to immediately apprehend the appellant, who was stated to be absconding.

Ratio

Where a wife suffers homicidal death inside the matrimonial home and the husband fails to explain the circumstances of death or ante-mortem injuries, an adverse inference under S.106 IEA, coupled with medical and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction under S.302 IPC.

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 535
Decided on: 25 May 2026
Case Title: Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra J., K. V. Viswanathan J.