The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a man for the murder of his wife, observing that he was the only person present at the scene with the “physical capability and motive” to commit the crime. A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed the appeal of Manindra Nath Mishri, an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation, ruling that the medical evidence and the “last seen” theory established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on the night of June 5, 2013, at the matrimonial home of the victim in Haldia, Purba Medinipur. The appellant informed his father-in-law (PW 1) the following morning that the victim had committed suicide. However, the prosecution alleged that the appellant had been torturing the victim for a further dowry of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and due to her protests against his extra-marital affairs.
The victim’s body was found on the floor of the house, while a napkin was seen hanging from a ceiling fan to simulate a suicide. The victim’s minor son (PW 10) testified that his parents had been quarreling on the night of the incident. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on December 5, 2016, under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Sekhar Kumar Basu, appearing for the appellant, argued that the prosecution’s case was based on hearsay and that the police had failed to examine the complainant during the investigation. He contended that the medical evidence did not support strangulation because the victim’s hyoid bone remained unbroken. The defense also produced several witnesses (DW 1-4) to show that the appellant had purchased ornaments for the victim, arguing that he treated her well.
The State countered that the “last seen” theory was applicable as the appellant admitted his presence in the house on the fateful night. It was argued that the post-mortem report conclusively proved the death was homicidal and caused by violent asphyxia resulting from the constriction of the neck.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court meticulously examined the medical evidence to distinguish between suicide by hanging and homicidal strangulation. Referring to standard medical jurisprudence, the Court noted:
- Absence of Saliva: “The absence of saliva in the present case indicates that the victim was strangulated to death,” the bench observed, noting that in suicidal hanging, saliva typically dribbles due to the body weight’s downward pressure.
- Ligature Mark: The Court found the mark on the neck to be “horizontal and continuous,” which is a characteristic of strangulation, unlike the oblique, non-continuous marks found in hanging.
- Physical Capability: Identifying the appellant as the assailant, the Court remarked: “The husband of the victim was the only person present at the PO on the night of June 5th, 2013, who had the physical capability and motive to end the life of the victim.” The bench noted that the only other occupants were minor children aged 2 and 7.
- Hyoid Bone: Regarding the unbroken hyoid bone, the Court cited Ponnusamy v. State of T.N. and Ravirala Laxmaiah v. State of A.P. (2013), stating: “Existence of such a fracture leads to a conclusive proof of strangulation but absence thereof does not prove the contra.” The Court noted that at age 30, the victim’s bone was strong enough to resist fracture unless extreme pressure was applied.
The Court also relied on the “last seen” theory, citing Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam (2022) and Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956). It noted that the victim died shortly after dinner, as evidenced by undigested food in her stomach, a time when she was admittedly in the company of the appellant.
Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstances, including the sour relationship, the extra-marital affairs, and the quarrel on the night of the murder.
“The prosecution has established the sour relationship between the appellant and the victim… the appellant resided with the victim on the fateful night. Thus, the appellant has strangulated the victim to death.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence was upheld.
Case Details
- Case Title: Manindra Nath Mishri v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
- Case No.: CRA 719 of 2016
- Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
- Date of Judgment: May 11, 2026
