Mr. Acharjee, the doctor clearly opined that the deceased died due to head injury and was then put on hanging. The injuries on the chest, jaw, and head are not self-inflicted. How do you explain these injuries if it was a suicide?

My Lord, the doctor's opinion is based on inference, not on direct evidence. The head injury could have been caused by a fall or by accident. The deceased was found hanging. In cases of hanging, sometimes the body may hit the ground or wall during convulsions, causing injuries. Moreover, no hammer was recovered. The witnesses to the alleged seizure of the hammer were declared hostile. Without the weapon, the link between the appellant and the head injury is missing. The prosecution has not proved that the appellant caused the head injury. The mere fact that there was a head injury does not prove that the appellant inflicted it.

The High Court acquitted the mother-in-law and brother-in-law on the ground that they were not sharing the same dwelling hut. That does not mean the husband was not present. PW-14 saw the appellant lying on the bed. The appellant himself informed the father of the death. Why should we believe that he was not present?

My Lord, the appellant does not deny that he was present. He was the husband, living in the matrimonial home. The question is whether he caused the death. Presence alone is not proof of guilt. The prosecution must prove that he inflicted the head injury. It has not. The fact that the mother and brother were acquitted shows that the prosecution's case against the family was weak. If the mother and brother were not in the same dwelling hut, it is even more difficult to believe that the appellant alone could have committed the murder without any noise or without any evidence. The acquittal of co-accused creates a reasonable doubt.

You have not offered any explanation under Section 313 CrPC. You simply denied the allegations. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, this Court held that the failure to offer an explanation is a strong circumstance. Why should we not draw an adverse inference?

My Lord, the appellant did offer an explanation — he informed the father that the deceased had committed suicide. That was his explanation. Under Section 313 CrPC, the accused is not required to prove his innocence; he is only required to explain incriminating circumstances. The incriminating circumstance here is that the deceased died of head injury. The appellant does not know how she sustained that injury. He was not present when she fell or was hit. He cannot explain what he did not witness. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove that the appellant inflicted the injury. Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden. In Trimukh, there was no dispute about the homicidal nature of death. Here, there is.

The deceased was subjected to persistent dowry demands. Multiple panchayats were held. The motorcycle was delivered, yet the torture continued. Does this not establish a strong motive?

My Lord, motive is relevant, but it is not proof of guilt. The prosecution must still prove that the appellant committed the murder. The dowry demands and panchayats prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The appellant is willing to accept conviction under Section 498A. But murder is a different offence. The prosecution must prove the actus reus — that the appellant caused the head injury. It has not. Motive alone cannot convict.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

Death by Suicide, Not Homicide; No Direct Evidence — (2026) INSC 535

The deceased was found hanging. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused the head injury. The medical evidence does not conclusively rule out suicide.

Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura — (2026) INSC 535

Core Argument

The deceased was found hanging. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused the head injury. The medical evidence does not conclusively rule out suicide. The acquittal of co-accused (mother, brother, father) shows that the prosecution case is weak. The appellant should be given the benefit of doubt.

Key Precedents

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 — Relied upon by the prosecution, but the petitioner submits that the facts are distinguishable; in Trimukh, there was no dispute about the homicidal nature of death, whereas here the medical evidence is inconclusive.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in