While upholding the conviction for murder of spouse, the Calcutta High Court has clarified that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, a conviction for murder may be sustained where the prosecution proves a complete chain of circumstances showing motive, last-seen presence of the accused with the deceased inside the matrimonial home, the accused’s exclusive physical capability to commit the offence, and medical evidence establishing homicidal strangulation rather than suicidal hanging.
Additionally, the Court held that post-mortem findings such as a horizontal and continuous ligature mark, absence of saliva dribbling, reddish and soft neck markings, violent asphyxia, and the doctor’s opinion that death was not due to hanging can support the conclusion of strangulation, and that absence of fracture of the hyoid bone does not by itself negate strangulation.
The Court also laid down that non-examination of the complainant during police investigation is not fatal where the complaint itself forms the basis of the case, the complainant confirms its contents at trial, and no prejudice or investigative illegality is shown. Further, where the inquest precedes the FIR, omission in the inquest report to name the accused does not undermine the prosecution case on the principle applied to cases where the FIR had already been lodged before the inquest.
The Court further held that failure of the trial court to record the preliminary competency questions put to a child witness does not automatically render such evidence unusable, especially where the child’s capacity had already been judicially assessed under Section 164 CrPC and the testimony finds support from surrounding circumstances.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay closely examined the oral evidence, including inconsistencies. It noted the victim’s father’s trial testimony diluted portions of his complaint, especially regarding what minor son had told him about the previous night’s incident, but the Court still treated the evidence as establishing at least a quarrel between the appellant and the victim on the night of 5 June 2013. The Bench also considered the evidence of the victim’s brother, and the statements attributed to neighbours, who turned hostile at trial but whose prior police statements indicated that the victim had confided in them about the appellant’s extramarital affairs and cruelty when she objected to them. The Bench observed that these witnesses appeared to have attempted to distance themselves from the incident during trial.
The Bench found that the evidence of the minor son was treated with caution. Although the trial court had not recorded the preliminary questions and answers testing his competency, the Bench did not discard his evidence for that reason alone. It relied on the fact that a Judicial Magistrate had earlier recorded his statement under Section 164 CrPC after certifying his capability to state facts truthfully. Minor son’s evidence established that the victim and the appellant quarrelled on the night of 5 June 2013 after returning from an Indian Oil Corporation function, that the family was together in the house that night, and that by the next morning the victim was dead. At the same time, minor son also stated that the appellant loved the family and had never assaulted the victim; the Bench viewed this part of the testimony in light of the fact that, after the victim’s death, the child had been residing with the appellant’s family and later with the appellant himself.
Significantly, the Bench noted that the medical evidence distinguishes hanging from strangulation. It relied on the post-mortem findings that there was no dribbling of saliva, the ligature mark was horizontal and almost complete around the neck, the base of the mark was reddish and not hard, abrasions were present on the neck, the neck was not elongated, the tissues were contused, and the doctor’s opinion was that the constricting force was not the weight of the body and that death was due to violent asphyxia caused by constriction of the neck with ligature or similar force. The Bench held that the absence of fracture of the hyoid bone did not rule out strangulation, particularly because the victim was about 30 years old and the judgment, relying on precedent, observed that hyoid fracture is not inevitable in every case of strangulation.
The Bench’s overall observation was that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances: a strained marital relationship and motive arising from cruelty and alleged extramarital affairs, a quarrel between the spouses on the night of 5 June 2013, the presence in the house of only the appellant, the victim and two minor children who could not have committed the act, the timing of death during that night, and medical evidence pointing to homicidal strangulation rather than suicide by hanging. On that basis, the Bench affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the appellant had murdered his wife and upheld both the conviction and sentence.
Briefly, an appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Manindra Nath Mishri, under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC, arising out of the death of his wife at her matrimonial home on 6 June 2013. The trial court had sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine for the offence under Section 302 and to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine for the offence under Section 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim was subjected to cruelty for failure to bring money from her parental home and for objecting to the appellant’s alleged extramarital affairs, and that on the night preceding the incident there had been a quarrel between the spouses.
The father of the victim stated that he was informed on the morning of 6 June 2013 that the victim had committed suicide, and on reaching the place of occurrence he found her body lying on the floor while a napkin or ghamcha was hanging from the ceiling fan. His complaint led to registration of the FIR on 7 June 2013 under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. The inquest had, however, already been conducted on 6 June 2013, and it recorded a black bent mark on the throat and noted that those present had stated that the victim had committed suicide. The post-mortem doctor opined that death was caused by violent asphyxia, was ante-mortem, and was mostly homicidal, further stating that the death may not have been caused by hanging.
Appearances:
Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv., Antarikhya Basu, Madhumita Basak, for Appellant
Debasish Roy, P.P., Suman De, Trisha Rakshit, for State
