Now the Supreme Court has acquitted the woman
The Hush Post | 13:26 | 4-minute read
A lower court in Assam had convicted a woman who didn’t cry at her husband’s death for his murder. Now the Supreme Court of India has acquitted the woman.
The woman spent five years in the jail serving a life imprisonment. The lower court convicted her as she didn’t cry at her husband’s murder and people had last seen her with him.
The evidence against her was that she was last seen with her husband before his mysterious murder, a report said.
Coming to her rescue, the Supreme Court has set aside her conviction in her husband’s murder. The apex court refused to give credence to the reasoning of the trial court and Guwahati High Court. The courts had held that her “unnatural conduct” of not crying at her husband’s unnatural death proved her guilt.
The HC and lower court relied on last seen theory
The lower court and HC relied on last seen theory at the time of murder. These courts held her “unnatural conduct” of not crying proved that she was the killer of her husband. The lower court ruled that she failed to explain the circumstances as to how the death occurred at night.
A Supreme Court Bench ruled that circumstantial evidence did not lead to inescapable conclusion that she had killed her husband. Thus the Bench ordered her release from the jail.
“The fact that prosecution witness did not notice tears in her eyes, deemed as unnatural conduct by the courts below, cannot be sufficient to draw an adverse inference of guilt against her. It is not uncommon human behaviour that on the death of a near relative, or upon witnessing a murderous assault, a person goes into complete silence and stupor showing no reaction or sensibility,” the Bench said.
The Supreme Court said there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased. One person could not cause these injuries. It tells a totally different story by itself that the assailants may have been more than one, the Bench said.
“The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely ruled out. The appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal on the benefit of doubt. We accordingly order her acquittal and release from custody forthwith, unless wanted in any other case,” the court said.