Mr. Roy, the hammer was not recovered. The witnesses to the seizure turned hostile. How can you prove that the appellant used a hammer?

My Lord, the medical evidence independently establishes that the head injury was caused by a blunt weapon like a hammer. The absence of recovery of the hammer does not negate the prosecution case. The doctor's opinion is based on the nature of the injury — depressed fracture of the occipital area, which is consistent with a blow from a blunt weapon. The appellant was present in the house. He had the opportunity. He failed to explain. The failure to recover the weapon is not fatal when the medical evidence and the circumstances are otherwise sufficient.

The High Court acquitted the mother and brother. Does that not create a doubt about the prosecution's case?

My Lord, the High Court acquitted the mother and brother on the ground that they were not sharing the same dwelling hut. The evidence against them was weak. But the evidence against the appellant is specific and overwhelming. He was the husband, he was present in the dwelling unit, he was the one who informed the father. The acquittal of co-accused does not entitle the appellant to acquittal. The State did not appeal because the case against the appellant was strong enough to sustain a conviction.

The appellant says he did not know how the head injury occurred. Is that not a possible explanation? He was not present when she fell.

My Lord, the appellant was in the house. He was present. PW-14 saw him lying on the bed. He informed the father that the deceased committed suicide. If he did not know how the head injury occurred, he could have said so. He did not. He simply denied everything. Moreover, the medical evidence shows that the head injury was caused by a blunt weapon like a hammer — not by a fall. A fall does not typically cause a depressed fracture of the occipital area without other injuries. The appellant's failure to offer any explanation is a strong circumstance against him.

The doctor's opinion is based on inference. Is it possible that the deceased hit her head while falling during a suicide attempt?

My Lord, the doctor considered this possibility. He specifically noted that there was no typical ligature mark, no congestion, no tongue protrusion — all of which would be present in a genuine hanging. The deceased had multiple injuries — on the chest, jaw, and head. These are not consistent with a fall during a suicide attempt. The doctor concluded that it was a case of homicidal hanging. This Court has relied on standard medical texts (Modi, Parikh) which recognise that the presence of ante-mortem injuries and absence of typical ligature marks indicate simulated hanging. The inference is not speculative; it is based on established medical jurisprudence.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

Homicidal Hanging Established, Section 106 Shifts Burden — (2026) INSC 535

The medical evidence clearly establishes that the deceased died due to head injury and was then hanged to simulate suicide.

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

Core Argument

The medical evidence clearly establishes that the deceased died due to head injury and was then hanged to simulate suicide. The appellant was present in the house, informed the father of suicide, and failed to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC. Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts the burden to the appellant to explain the injuries. The conviction is correct.

Key Precedents

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 — Held that in offences committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is of a lighter character, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a corresponding burden on the inmates to give a cogent explanation.
Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 — Held that when death occurs in the custody of the husband, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC; mere denial is insufficient.

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