Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has upheld the life sentence of a husband for the murder of his wife by hanging under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to suspicion of her having an affair and doubting the paternity of their son. The court in its verdict stated : “‘Suspicion’ is a disease. If it is not treated, one becomes blind and the consequence will be disastrous,” while ruling out the possibility of suicide, noting that the deceased was found hanging in a nude state, with the room locked from the outside.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, relied on expert testimony from the police surgeon, and observed that “no woman will chose to commit suicide in nudity.” The court found that this particular circumstance was “a clear indication against suicide and a sign of homicide.”

The prosecution alleged that the husband (1st accused), after marrying the deceased (Remya) on June 2, 2002, subjected her to cruelty along with his brother and mother, by doubting her chastity and demanding more dowry. Following a complaint by Remya to the Women’s Cell, the husband returned secretly from the UAE, where he was employed, on January 15, 2010. On January 16, he took Remya and their 1.5-year-old daughter to a lodge in Payyannur, and murdered Remya, after intoxicating her, by hanging her with a shawl. To destroy evidence, he locked the room from the outside and left the child at her grandfather’s house, in order to concealed the murder. The body was discovered by the manager of the lodge, who observed that the room was locked from the outside with a bolt. When the room remained locked until the afternoon, driven by curiosity, he opened the door and found the body.

The Special Court for Offences against Women and Children, Thalassery, convicted the husband of the deceased under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (destruction of evidence), and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The mother-in-law of the deceased was found guilty under Section 498A (cruelty), while the brother-in-law of the deceased was acquitted of all charges by the trial court.

The accused/ appellant contended that the case against him relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including presumptions under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the last-seen theory. The appellant also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing the absence of direct evidence, missing call records, and inconclusive medical evidence on suicide. It was also claimed the accused was not linked to the lodge room, as the register entry did not match his identity, and the car allegedly used to transport the victim was never traced. Moreover, the accused pleaded alibi, stating he was not in India but UAE at the time of the incident.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the cruelty charges under Section 498A, given the lack of conclusive evidence. It observed that the victim's family—did not provide evidence supporting allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty. The court noted that the victim’s complaint to the Women’s Cell was primarily based on her husband’s suspicion of her chastity and the paternity of their elder child. It was also found that the victim was fond of her husband and willingly accompanied him despite family opposition. The High Court, therefore acquitted the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, finding no evidence to support the case of cruelty.

With regards the plea of alibi, the court held that the burden of proving alibi lies on the accused, as per Section 103 of the Evidence Act. The accused presented no positive evidence and relied on gaps in the prosecution's case. However, the prosecution, through witnesses and travel records, established that the accused was in India when the incident occurred. “There is every reason to conclude that the 1st accused deliberately suppressed his passport. In the above circumstance, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him… the 1st accused has failed in proving the defence of alibi,” the court stated.

The fact that Remya died by hanging was undisputed, but the critical issue was whether it was a case of homicide or suicide. In this regard, the testimony of the Police Surgeon from Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem, was central to the case. The court noted :“PW20 is an experienced Police Surgeon having more than 33 years experience in the field, at the time of examination. He would swear that, normally Indian women hide their nudity, when they commit suicide. In the instant case, except that there was a loin cloth, the victim was nude. According to PW20, the place of occurrence being the heart of the town, with plenty of people going around, no girl would normally hang herself in a nude state… even in an extremely depressed state, normally no female would suicide being nude, unless she is mentally insane.” The surgeon further clarified that such nudity, combined with the public location of the lodge, was inconsistent with typical suicidal behaviour.

The court also ruled out the possibility of suicide as the cots in the room were positioned far from the point of suspension. “The only possibility is, there was intervention of somebody else in the hanging of the deceased. Since both the cots are positioned far away from the point of suspension, and there are no other articles present in the room to enable the deceased to have access to the point of suspension, the contention that the victim might have climbed over the cot to have access to the point of suspension cannot be believed,” the court observed.

In light of these findings, the court held that the conviction of the husband under Section 302 for murder was sustainable.

 

Cause Title: M. Shammykumar v State of Kerala [CRL.A NO. 1193 OF 2017]