6 min readNew DelhiJul 22, 2026 05:30 PM IST
Observing that witnessing the death of one’s mother at the hands of one’s father, uncles and aunts is an “abnormal” event, the Calcutta High Court recently set aside the acquittal of a man and four of his relatives accused of murdering his wife in 2006. The high court held that the testimony of her minor son, who claimed to have witnessed the crime, could not be “brushed aside”.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay noted that the child was “hiding” under a bed and was “terrified” after witnessing his mother being assaulted by his father and paternal relatives. The bench observed that such a reaction was “quite natural” and found that the child had no “motive” to falsely implicate his own father or his siblings in his mother’s death.
“Witnessing the death of one’s mother at the hands of one’s father, uncles and aunts is indeed an abnormal event in the life of an individual. The same being witnessed by a minor child of seven years old only exacerbates the situation. The evidence of prosecution witness 3 (child), therefore, cannot be brushed aside,” the July 16 order read.
Setting aside the trial court’s acquittal, the high court sentenced the husband and four other accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for life, with a minimum of 24 years before remission, and imposed a fine of Rs 15,000 on each. The husband was also sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of Rs 25,000, to be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the elder brother of the victim challenging the March 30, 2017 order acquitting the man and the other accused persons, who were charged with the murder of the child’s mother in 2006.
A woman’s assault, death
The prosecution claimed that on the night of June 6, 2006, the father of the child, a farmer, assaulted and administered poison to his mother. It was claimed that the father was assisted by the other accused persons, who are relatives of the man and were present at the matrimonial house of the victim. The child claimed that he was hidden under the bed when the father was beating his mother with the assistance of the other accused persons.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay set aside the trial court’s acquittal order and sentenced the husband and four other accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for life, with a minimum of 24 years before remission.
The woman’s family was informed by the husband’s brother that she had attempted suicide by consuming poison and had been admitted to a nursing home. However, the brother claimed that when they reached her matrimonial home, they found her lying on the veranda with froth coming out of her mouth.
Story continues below this ad
The victim’s family claimed they were initially prevented by some of the accused from taking her to a hospital, where she was eventually declared brought dead. Subsequently, the elder brother of the victim lodged a complaint on July 7, 2006, and stated that initially the victim and the accused husband led a happy married life, which lasted for four years from the date of marriage.
He added that the accused husband’s income was not substantial and that he used to compel the victim to bring money from her paternal home. Lastly, on the Jamai Shashthi of 2006, the accused sent the victim to her paternal house to bring a sum of Rs 50,000, which could not be paid by the family of the victim.
The trial court, by its order dated March 30, 2017, acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the order, the victim’s family approached the High Court challenging the acquittal.
‘Husband is clearly culpable
The Patna High Court pointed out that the husband is clearly culpable as he prevented the family of the woman from taking her body to the hospital. It was further noted by the court that he narrated each event that took place in the incident to one of the brothers of the victim.
Story continues below this ad
“He therefore was privy to the plan, and its execution hatched to end the victim’s life. He, however, chose to remain silent. He remained silent by choice, not by compulsion”, the court added.
The court clarifed that the present case clearly falls outside the scope of abetment to suicide as the evidence placed on record points that the victim tried to vomit out the poison rammed in the mouth of the victim by the accused husband.
The court also found that the respective roles of the accused persons in assaulting the victim and wiping out evidence by changing her saree were proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also mentioned that the demand of dowry by the accused husband was also established in the case.
Arguments
One of the counsels, representing the accused persons, advocate Abhijit Ganguly, submitted that the doctor concerned was not examined by the prosecution during the course of the trial and the post-mortem report cannot be admitted in evidence.
Story continues below this ad
He further argued that the common intention of the accused persons with the accused husband has not been proved. He therefore argued that the order of acquittal in favour of the other accused persons deserves to be upheld.
The state was represented by public prosecutor Kallol Mondal in the matter,
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay set aside the trial court’s acquittal order and sentenced the husband and four other accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for life, with a minimum of 24 years before remission.