It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Gour Acharjee vs The State of Tripura & Ors in Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2014 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 535 that was pronounced just recently on May 25, 2026 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has upheld the conviction and so also life sentence of a man for murdering his wife and hanging her body to make the death appear to be a suicide. We need to note that the Apex Court was at pains to lament that despite the wife pleading with her parents to save her from dowry-related torture, attempts were made to patch up the marriage and send her back to her matrimonial home. This undoubtedly turned out to be the biggest undoing and the wife was mercilessly killed by her husband and hanged to try to appear to be a case of suicide.
It must be noted that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan dismissed the husband’s appeal which had challenged the judgment of Gauhati High Court which had affirmed his conviction for murder and marital cruelty. By all accounts, the top court found that the medical evidence clearly established that the case was one of simulated or homicidal hanging and not suicide. It merits noting that the Apex Court noted that the husband was present in the matrimonial home when his wife was found dead and failed to offer any plausible explanation for the injuries that were sustained by her or the circumstances leading to her death. The top court also noted that the husband was absconding and so deemed it fit to direct the Director General of Police, Tripura to immediately constitute a team to apprehend the convict.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “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. 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.”
While stating the purpose of the appeal, the Bench observes in para 2 that, “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 years for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Appropriate default sentences were also imposed.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “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.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “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 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.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “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.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “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 oma 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.
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 based 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).”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 8 that, “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.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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.”
Equally significant is that the Bench then further holds in para 12 that, “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.”
No less significant is that the Bench then points out in para 31 that, “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.”
Resultantly and finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 32 that, “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 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.”
All told, we thus see that the Supreme Court has very rightly upheld life term for a husband who was found prima facie to be involved in murdering his wife and hanging her body to give the impression that she committed suicide. But the Apex Court was able to see through the diabolical conspiracy and rightly concluded that the husband was culpable for causing death of his wife. There has to be zero tolerance for heinous crimes like dowry death so that no one ever dares to take the life of a woman for granted. No denying it!
Author Bio
