2026 INSC 535 Page 1 of 25

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1803 of 2014

Gour Acharjee ……. Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura & Ors. ……. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

K. V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Could the life of young Soma Acharjee have been

saved? Did the fear of societal opprobrium result in Soma

being thrown to the wolves? These questions will remain

hypothetical. Within a few days after her marriage, the

deceased, Soma, was subjected to immense torture on

account of demand for dowry. She repeatedly made

entreaties to her parents to save her and even came to her

parental home and stayed with them for a few days.

Page 2 of 25

However, 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. Soma’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 Soma met with a tragic end at her

matrimonial home. Hopefully, the story of her life will be an

eye-opener for many.

2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of

the judgment dated 24.08.2012 in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 58

of 2009 passed by the High Court of Gauhati, Agartala Bench.

By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the

judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West

Tripura, dated 03.06.2009 by which the appellant was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (and to

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-) for offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3

Page 3 of 25

years for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

Appropriate default sentences were also imposed.

3. Along with the appellant (A1), appellant’s mother Arati

Acharjee (A2), appellant’s brother Nitai Acharjee (A3) and

Appellant’s father Bimal Acharjee (A4) were tried together.

Though the Trial Court acquitted A4, Bimal Acharjee, the

father, it convicted the mother and brother along with the

appellant. They have also since been acquitted by the High

Court and the State is not in appeal.

BRIEF FACTS:-

4. The deceased is Soma Acharjee, wife of the appellant.

She died on 16.06.2007. The prosecution was set in motion by

a First Information Report lodged on the very same day at

around 12:15 hours by PW-7 Swapan Acharjee, the father of

the deceased. According to the FIR, about fifteen months

ago, the deceased was given in marriage to the appellant.

The deceased was subjected to dowry demand by her in-

laws and was tormented and tortured. FIR states that the

Page 4 of 25

panchayat had to intervene and the daughter was taken back

from the parental home to the matrimonial home on several

occasions. The complainant avers that on 16.06.2007, he

received information that his daughter committed suicide by

way of hanging herself. Suspecting that the in-laws were

responsible, he lodged the FIR which was registered for

offences under Section 498A, 304B and 34 of IPC.

5. The Trial Court, however, framed charges against the

accused under Section 498A and 302 of the IPC read with

Section 34. At the Trial, the prosecution examined 15

witnesses and marked several exhibits. The accused were

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No witness was

examined by the defence.

6. We have heard Ms. Diksha Rai, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, learned counsel for the

State. Both counsels very ably presented their respective

points of view. They exhaustively took us through the

records of the case. We have considered their submissions

Page 5 of 25

including the written submissions. We have also perused the

original trial Court records.

HOMICIDAL NATURE OF DEATH :-

7. The Trial Court and the High Court had no difficulty in

concluding that the accused died a homicidal death. PW-

13, Dr. Bhanu Bhusan Deb, who was posted as Medical

Officer at Boxanagar Primary Health Centre conducted the

postmortem on 16.06.2007. He was also examined at the

Trial. We have perused the postmortem report and his

deposition. PW-13 reiterated the contents of the post mortem

report which was as follows:-

“On 16-06-08 (sic) I was posted as MO at Boxanagar PHC.

On that day I conducted post mortem on the dead-body of

Soma Acharjee as was identified by Pintu Kr. Sarkar and

others. On physical examination of the dead-body I found

the following injuries :

1. 1/2" X '1/2" small haemotomma over sternum (front

middle portion of chest)

2. 1/2" X 1/2" sized small haemotomma over right

angle of the mandible (right side of the face jaw)

3. 1/2" X 1/2" sized haemotomma over occipital area.

No typical ligature mark was seen. A flat depressed

measuring 3" X 5" (U shaped) over left side of neck was

found. No abrasion or acchimosis on that area was seen.

Page 6 of 25

There was depressed fracture of the scalp. No cervical

vertribae fracture was seen. The details about the

injuries· seen in the thoarax region, abdomen and muscles,

bones and joints are mentioned in the report, at pages 2 &

3. More detail description about the external and internal

injuries is mentioned in the report.

From the external and the internal injuries observed

during the post mortem examination in my opinion, the

cause of death was head injury caused by blunt weapon

like hammer. This opinion is mainly b ased on the

injury No.3 above mentioned, which resulted in

congestion of the effected areas. The consequent

depressed fracture of occipital area caused pita, dora,

arachnoids of matter of that effected area getting

congested. The brain tissue of the effected area was

also congested.

The patient was later on put on hanging so it was a case

of homicidal hanging. The basis of this conclusion is that

there was no typical hanging ligature mark, on the left

lateral side of neck where skin tissues were pressed with

an area of 3" X 5" (U shaped) where no abrasion or

acchimosis was seen. This was indicative of circulatory

failure. There was no inflammatory sign seen. The

person was dead and so called pressed area was below

the thyroid cartilage. There was no congestion seen in

conjunctiva, eye lids, face, nose, oropharynx, laringo-

pharinx and tongue which are generally seen in a case of

hanging. Tongue was not also protruded. There was no

vaginal discharge. No fecal matter was seen in the

annus, which are generally seen in a typical hanging

death case.

OPINION OF DOCTOR AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH

From the above findings, I am in the opinion that the lady

was died due to head injury caused by blunt weapon like

hammer and then she was put on hanging. So, this is a

case of homicidal hanging.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Page 7 of 25

8. We are amply supported here by the literature on

medical jurisprudence. In this case, the doctor (PW-13), has

noticed injuries on the chest, jaw and on the head of the

deceased. There was no typical ligature mark. Further,

there was no abrasion or ecchymosis near the skin tissue on

the left lateral side of the neck. No inflammatory sign was

seen. No congestion was seen in conjunctiva, eyelids, face,

nose, oropharynx, laryngopharynx and tongue. The tongue

was not protruded. There was no vaginal discharge and no

fecal matter was seen in the anus.

9. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology

[Twenty-third Edition], dealing with the characteristics of

death by hanging, it is set out as under: -

“However, one can safely say that death was due to

hanging, if, in addition to the cord mark, there was

dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth, ecchymoses and

slight abrasions around the ligature-mark, laceration of the

intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood

within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia,

besides if there are no evidence of a struggle, scratches and

nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning.”

10. Equally informative is Dr. C.K. Parikh’s Text Book of

Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology [Fourth Edition]. The

Page 8 of 25

learned author dealing with the attributes of hanging and

how it was not uncommon to kill a victim and suspend the

person’s body elucidates as under: -

“Whether death was due to hanging: It is not uncommon in

India to kill a victim and then suspend his body (postmortem

hanging) from a tree or rafter to mislead the relatives and

the police. In such a case, a ligature mark is usually found.

Therefore, when a person is found dead and his body

suspended, no opinion can be given from the ligature mark

alone. Death could be attributed to hanging if one finds (1)

a ligature mark with petechial haemorrhages and

ecchymoses into its substance (2) dribble-marks of saliva

(3) tear of the intima of carotid arteries with extravasation of

blood within their walls (4) congestion and haemorrhage in

the lymph nodes above and below the ligature mark, and

(5) absence of fatal injuries and poisoning.”

Again, dealing with injuries in the case of a person found

hanging, the learned author sets out as follows: -

“Injuries: When injuries are present on bodies found

hanging, several possibilities exist for their causation. They

might be suicidal, such as cut throat, cuts of the wrists, etc.

They could also be homicidal, the individual having

been beaten to death and then subsequently hanged to

make it appear as a case of hanging. The nature of the

injuries will help in many cases. As for example, fractures

of multiple ribs, several contusions all over the body, and

rupture of viscera can only be homicidal. It should be

remembered that accidental injuries may be sustained due

to violent convulsions which may precede death when the

body of the person may strike the nearby wall or furniture.

Postmortem injuries such as fractured limbs or ribs may

occur when the ligature is cut and the body falls from a

height or during attempts at resuscitation.”

Page 9 of 25

11. Significantly, the injuries found on the body of the

deceased are not consistent with an ordinary case of suicidal

hanging. The existence of ante mortem injuries on different

parts of the body of deceased Soma is not ordinarily capable

of being self-inflicted. This fact substantially undermines the

defence version of suicide. As demonstrated earlier,

treatises on medical jurisprudence recognised the fact that

where signs of assault or struggle are found on a body, later

discovered hanging, the possibility of a case of simulated

hanging cannot be lightly disregarded. In the present case,

the medical evidence indicates that the deceased has been

subjected to violence prior to her death thereby negating the

theory of voluntary suicidal act.

12. 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.

Page 10 of 25

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT PROSECUTION

WITNESSES:-

13. Dhiraj Biswas (PW-1), who was the Upapradhan of South

Kalamchura village speaks about the deceased having talked

about the torture by her appellant-husband for the delay in

the delivery of a motorcycle that was demanded by him. He

also speaks about a compromise being effected and how she

went back to the house of her husband after a resolution

(Ex-1) was drawn up. He also speaks about the death of the

deceased about 20 days after the said resolution. PW-1

deposed that upon hearing the news of the death, he

immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and saw the

dead body hanging.

14. Pintoo Kumar (PW-2), who was a neighbour speaks

about how Swapan Acharjee (PW-7)-father of the deceased-

Soma had come to him complaining of trouble between the

deceased Soma and her husband-appellant. He also speaks

about how he advised PW-7 to go to PW-1. He further

reiterates the meeting and the resolution passed. PW-2

Page 11 of 25

deposed that the deceased did not make any complaint

against any other person except her husband – the appellant.

This witness on the aspect of the discovery of the hammer

stated that he was asked to sign a seizure list by Sub-

inspector-Nirpati Bhushan Das. The witness was declared

hostile. The witness in the cross-examination by the public

prosecutor denied that deceased Soma informed him that all

four accused persons tortured her and demanded

motorcycle and money. He further denied that after

motorcycle was given, the deceased informed him that the

appellant tortured her.

15. Ranu Das (PW-5), speaks about the panchayat and the

resolution passed as spoken to by PW-1. In the cross-

examination, PW-5 submitted that, according to their

understanding, the deceased and the appellant doubted

each other about their character. PW-5, in cross-examination

denied the suggestion that the deceased Soma did not inform

in the meeting of the villagers about her husband torturing

her. She further denied the suggestion that the parents of the

Page 12 of 25

deceased did not inform her that the deceased was being

tortured by the appellant. Haripada Nama (PW-6), like PW-2,

did not support the prosecution on the seizure of the

hammer.

16. Swapan Acharjee (PW-7), the father of the deceased,

deposed that after two months of the marriage, deceased

Soma informed him that she was being tortured by her

husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law for delivery of

the motorcycle immediately and for payment of cash amount;

that he immediately sent the T.V. set and sought time for the

delivery of the motorcycle; that after seven days, deceased

Soma rang him up and informed that she was being assaulted

and tortured by the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-

law for failure to deliver the motorcycle; that he conveyed

that within seven days the appellant could come and take

delivery of the motorcycle, and that he went to Agartala

purchased a motorcycle and delivered it to the appellant.

PW-7 further deposed that within four days, there was a

phone call from the deceased informing him that she was

Page 13 of 25

being tortured for the cash amount. That on hearing this, he

went to the house of the appellant and thereafter informed

the matter to PW-5 and ultimately attended the meeting at

the house of PW-1.

17. PW-7 further deposed that the meeting ended with

Soma being advised to stay with the husband; that after two

days, deceased Soma again called over phone and informed

about the torture by the husband, mother-in-law and brother-

in-law; that there was a further meeting in the house of PW-5;

that again she was advised to stay with the husband; that

within four days of the second meeting, the deceased rang

up to say that the torture had become unbearable; that within

a fortnight, a third meeting was held; that in this meeting also

deceased Soma expressed her inability to stay in the house

because of the prolonged torture by the appellant, brother-

in-law and mother-in-law, and that he was helpless since he

had met all demands.

18. PW-7 deposed that after 15 days the appellant went to

the house of PW-7 with the deceased and left her there; that

Page 14 of 25

the deceased informed him that she was severely assaulted

by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in the absence of

the husband. That he learnt from PW-5 that the appellant had

disposed of the motorcycle and left for Bihar; that after about

a month the appellant came to his house and asked the

deceased to accompany him to Bihar; and that the appellant

on being advised to think over the matter left alone.

19. PW-7 deposed that he contacted the Upapradhan and

PW-2 with regard to the return of Soma; that again a meeting

was held on 27.05.2007 which both families attended. That at

the meeting, the deceased cried and complained of torture.

That PW-2 took the initiative to settle the matter and asked

the appellant and his brother to seek pardon and to promise

that they would not torture Soma and that Bimal Acharjee and

Arati were also advised to ensure that there was no torture.

PW-7 deposed that the resolution of the meeting was

reduced into writing and signatures of both sides were

taken.

Page 15 of 25

20. PW-7 stated that it was decided in the meeting that if

there was further torture, the matter would be taken up as

per law; that after the meeting, the deceased accompanied

the accused to their house and that on 16.06.2007, the

appellant informed him over phone that the deceased Soma

had committed suicide by hanging. He deposed that

thereafter he went to the Police Station and filed a complaint;

that with the police he went to the house and found the dead

body hanging from the roof in a room on the southern side

and that as the body was being brought down he saw a black

spot on the neck and another on the chest. PW-8, wife of PW-

7 and mother of the deceased, also deposed on the same

lines as her husband.

21. PW-12-Titan Das is the neighbor of the appellant. He

deposes to the effect that about a year and a half back, one

morning around 7.00 AM, when he went to the house of the

appellant to bring a pen he found the dead body of Soma

hanging from the ceiling. He deposed that he cried and

returned home and did not see anybody in the room. He was

Page 16 of 25

declared hostile and cross-examined with regard to his

previous statement that he had seen the appellant lying on

the bed and about how he asked the appellant to deliver the

pen and, thereafter, on seeing the body of the deceased

hanging he asked the appellant about it. He denied the

suggestion. He admitted that he had come to the court with

the accused persons. In cross-examination, he deposed that

when he saw the deceased hanging, there was still life in her

and she was moving her hands and legs.

22. PW-14 Jitendra Das is an important witness. A

neighbour of the appellant, he deposed that about one and a

half years back - two days before the death of the deceased,

he had asked Soma whether she had taken food. She stated

that her mother-in-law had not given her food and that she

had taken food elsewhere; that the next evening, on return to

his house he found the deceased sitting on the verandah and

altercation with hue and cry was going on inside the house of

the appellant and that even at 11.00 PM, the deceased was

sitting on the verandah. That around 1.30 AM, he heard cries

Page 17 of 25

and that the following morning around 6.35 AM, he heard the

cries of Soma - the deceased saying “Ma... go” twice. That

after 3-4 minutes, he heard the cries of PW-12, Titan Das; that

he came out and asked Titan Das as to what happened and

Titan Das told him that Soma had committed suicide. The

witness deposed that immediately he rushed to the

appellant’s room and found the appellant lying on the bed

with face downwards on the pillow and the witness found the

body of Soma hanging from the ceiling.

23. PW-14 further deposed that he did not see any stool or

anything and he wondered how she could have hung herself.

He thereafter deposed that the body was hanging with a

piece of saree usually worn by the appellant’s mother; that

he called for appellant’s parents from the northern side room

and that police arrived about an hour later. During cross-

examination, he was confronted with his statement about how

the facts set out by him now were not part of the statement.

However, he reiterated that he had stated the same to the

police. He, however, admitted that he did not state to the

Page 18 of 25

police that he saw Soma’s body hanging with the saree of

appellant’s mother.

24. Though in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, it

was suggested that there was a boundary dispute between

PW-14 and the appellant’s family and the accused in 313

statement did refer to the same, we are not convinced that

such a dispute would by itself constitute a sufficient motive to

falsely implicate the appellant in a serious offence relating to

the death of the deceased Soma. PW-14 denied the

suggestion that he was deposing against the appellant due to

previous enmity. PW-14 is a neighbour and his presence is

natural and cannot be doubted.

25. There is clear evidence to the effect that there was

consistent torture of the deceased with regard to the demand

for dowry especially for the motorcycle and cash. Repeated

panchayats have been held, as spoken to by the witnesses

hereinabove. Even though on the same evidence, the three

other accused have been acquitted and the State has not

challenged the same in appeal, we are not inclined to acquit

Page 19 of 25

the appellant for the offence under Section 498A in the teeth

of the direct overwhelming evidence against the appellant.

IS THE APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER :-

26. The further question is whether the appellant has been

rightly found to be guilty for the offence under Section 302.

We have already found that the doctor’s evidence,

namely, PW-13, Dr. Bhanu Bhushan Dev, and the post-

mortem report (Exh.13) have been rightly accepted by the

courts below to conclude the homicidal nature of the death.

The trial Court acquitted A-4-Bimal Acharjee and the High

Court had acquitted A-2 (Arati Acharjee) and A-3 (Nitai

Acharjee) for the offence under Section 302.

27. While the trial Court acquitted A-4 since nothing

emerged in evidence against the father-in-law, the High

Court acquitted the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law on

the ground that the two were not sharing the same dwelling

hut though they were in the same compound.

Page 20 of 25

28. As far as A-1, the appellant is concerned, both the courts

are categoric that it was the appellant who was in the

dwelling unit with the deceased when she was found dead.

The medical opinion clearly points to simulated hanging or

homicidal hanging. It was the bounden duty of A-1 to put

forward a reasonable and probable cause of her death and

also to explain the injuries which the deceased sustained

prior to her death.

29. 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.

30. In the landmark judgment of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan

vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court had

the following telling observations to make: -

“13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of

the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few

years. Cases are frequently coming before the courts,

where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of

killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are

Page 21 of 25

generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house

and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead

evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness

of the crime, would come forward to depose against

another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence

may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to

depose in court as they want to keep aloof and do not want

to antagonise a neighbourhood family. The parents or

other family members of the bride being away from the

scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give

direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused

except regarding the demand of money or dowry and

harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a

crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go

unpunished.

14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house

and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the

opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and

in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely

difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish

the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of

circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon

by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal

trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A

judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not

escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of

Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315 : (1944) 2 All ER 13 (HL)]

— quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of

Punjab v. Karnail Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Cri)

135] .) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to

lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible

to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The

duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is

capable of leading, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in

mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when

any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,

the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b)

appended to this section throws some light on the content

and scope of this provision and it reads:

Page 22 of 25

“(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without

ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is

on him.”

15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy

inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case

would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the

nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish

the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in

other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would

be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of

Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a

corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to

give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was

committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away

by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on

the supposed premise that the burden to establish its

case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no

duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Thereafter, in para 22, this Court emphatically laid down as

under: -

“22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed

the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in

leading evidence to show that shortly before the

commission of crime they were seen together or the

offence takes place in the dwelling home where the

husband also normally resided, it has been

consistently held that if the accused does not offer any

explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an

explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong

circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for

commission of the crime . In Nika Ram v. State of

H.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635 : AIR 1972 SC

2077] it was observed that the fact that the accused

alone was with his wife in the house when she was

murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the

relations of the accused with her were strained would,

Page 23 of 25

in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point

to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 3

SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435] the appellant was

prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place

inside his house. It was observed that when the death

had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an

obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause

of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with

absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent

with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with

the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in

the commission of murder of his wife. In State of

U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992

SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence

disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late

night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire

after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was

that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and

that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by

the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated

her and their relations were strained and further the

evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the

night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was

complete and it was the husband who committed the

murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this

Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting

the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC.

In State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC

(Cri) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught

fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife

were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the

accused came out in the morning through the roof when the

hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of

accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a

daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died

due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on

account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be

any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the

accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

Page 24 of 25

31. In the present case, PW-14 clearly states of the presence

of the appellant when the body of the deceased was found

hanging. It was also early morning and it is believable that

the appellant would be in the house. In any event, that fact is

not denied by him because it was the appellant who

informed PW-7, though he told PW-7 that the deceased had

committed suicide. 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.

32. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands

dismissed. We have been informed that the appellant is

absconding. Now that we have dismissed the appeal, steps

Page 25 of 25

should be taken immediately to trace the appellant and take

him into custody. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the

Director General of Police, Tripura, who shall immediately

constitute a team and take steps to apprehend the convict.

……….........................J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ]

……….........................J.

[K. V. VISWANATHAN]

New Delhi;

25

th

May, 2026