Hanging Is Not Always Suicide: Supreme Court Explains 'Simulated Hanging'

The Supreme Court has held that where a body is found hanging but bears signs of assault or struggle, courts cannot lightly dismiss the possibility that it is a case of "simulated hanging".

Upholding the conviction of a man for murdering his wife and subjecting her to cruelty, court said medical evidence showing injuries inconsistent with suicidal hanging, coupled with the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death, can strongly point towards homicide.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan dismissed the appeal filed by Gour Acharjee against the 2012 judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which had affirmed his conviction for the murder of his wife, Soma, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The high court had, however, acquitted the appellant's brother and mother, while his father had already been acquitted by the trial court.

What did the Supreme Court say about simulated hanging?

Court noted that if a body found hanging bears injuries indicating assault or struggle, the possibility of a simulated hanging cannot be ignored.

Examining the post-mortem report, the Bench noted that the deceased had injuries on her chest, jaw and head. The doctor did not find the typical ligature mark associated with suicidal hanging. There were also no abrasions or bruising around the neck tissues, no inflammatory signs, no congestion in the eyes, face, nose or throat, no protrusion of the tongue, and no discharge.

"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," the Bench observed.

According to the court, the medical evidence clearly showed that Soma had been subjected to violence before her death, ruling out the theory of voluntary suicide.

"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," it held.

How did Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply in the case?

Court reiterated that where an offence occurs within the privacy of a house, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 places a corresponding burden on those present in the house to explain the circumstances of the death.

While the initial burden always remains on the prosecution, court said the inmates must offer a cogent explanation when the facts are especially within their knowledge.

In the present case, both the trial court and the high court had found that the appellant was alone with the deceased in the house when she died. However, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 351 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), he failed to provide any plausible explanation for her death or the injuries found on her body.

His defence that Soma had died by suicide was contradicted by the medical evidence, court said.

"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," the Bench said.

What was the prosecution's case?

Soma died on June 16, 2007, within 15 months of her marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was repeatedly subjected to cruelty over demands for dowry, particularly a motorcycle and cash. According to witnesses, several panchayat meetings were held after her family intervened, and she was repeatedly taken back to her matrimonial home.

After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found clear proof of persistent dowry-related harassment.

The Bench said that although the appellant's mother, brother and father had been acquitted, there was overwhelming direct evidence against the appellant to sustain his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC (corresponding to Section 85 of the BNS) for cruelty.

Direction to arrest absconding convict

Court was informed that the appellant was absconding.

With the appeal dismissed, the Bench directed immediate steps to trace and arrest him.

"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," Court ordered.

Case Title: Gour Acharjee Vs The State of Tripura & Ors

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Vishwanathan

Date of Judgment: May 25, 2026