HC upholds conviction of B’wood hair stylist Lisban John Miranda in wife’s murder case

Bombay HC upholds Bollywood stylist Lisban Miranda's conviction for wife's murder in 2012, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court (HC) recently upheld the conviction of well-known Bollywood hair stylist Lisban John Miranda for the murder of his wife, Bindiya, in their Andheri apartment in 2012. Miranda, who had styled Tollywood star Akkineni Nagarjuna and several Bollywood actors, was found guilty of offences under sections 498A (cruelty) and 302(murder)by the Additional Sessions Court of Greater Bombay in October 2014.

HT Image

The court sentenced Miranda to life imprisonment, removing the condition of imprisonment “until death” imposed by the trial court. The tragic incident on May 24, 2012, unfolded against a backdrop of alleged domestic abuse and financial coercion in the couple’s marriage. Miranda, accused of subjecting his wife to torture and extortion, reportedly demanded ₹25 lakh from Bindiya’s parents soon after their engagement. Fearing he might call off the marriage, Bindiya’s family gave him ₹14,50,000, as a fixed deposit under her name. Bindiya, a ground staff manager at Kingfisher Airlines, and Miranda were parents to a young daughter, Angelina.

On the evening of the incident, Bindiya sought her sister-in-law Priti’s help to seek refuge at her home after Miranda got drunk at a party hosted by his friend and started behaving rudely. Despite attempts to continue the party at their residence, Miranda was escorted home by his companions. Meanwhile, Bindiya returned home to gather her belongings for her overnight stay at Priti’s. Trouble arose when screams were heard from their fourth-floor apartment. Priti, unable to gain entry, sought help from authorities. Upon arrival, Bindiya’s family confronted Miranda, who reportedly threatened to detonate a gas cylinder if they intervened. Emergency services were alerted, and upon gaining access to the apartment, a horrific scene unfolded - Bindiya was found gravely injured, with Miranda nearby.

Following investigations and formal charges filed under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Miranda was arrested. The case was escalated to the Court of Sessions for trial. Despite maintaining his innocence, Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

In his appeal to the High Court, Miranda’s counsel advocate M. K. Kocharekar questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence, emphasising the absence of direct eyewitnesses and a clear motive for Miranda’s alleged actions. He criticised the framing of charges and raised concerns about the limited number of witnesses examined, as well as the prosecution’s failure to examine neighbours who could have provided vital information. The defence argued that Miranda’s heavily intoxicated state at the time rendered him incapable of committing the assault.

Rejecting the defence’s arguments, a bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande ruled that the prosecution’s evidence, supported by witness testimonies, left no room to doubt Miranda’s involvement in the crime. The court emphasised the completeness of the circumstantial evidence, noting Miranda’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the events leading to Bindiya’s death.

“No explanation has been given by the accused as to how the death of the deceased occurred, i.e. facts within his knowledge, since he and the deceased were the only two persons in the flat. The chain of circumstances being complete, the offence under Section 302 against the accused stands proved”, the court said.

Additionally, Miranda’s acceptance of key facts during the trial and the presence of incriminating evidence further supported the prosecution’s case. The court confirmed Miranda’s sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC, modifying the trial court’s order to remove the condition of imprisonment “until death” due to legal constraints on such sentencing powers.

According to the court, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for murder with death or imprisonment for life. However, in this instance, the learned Judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment “till his death,” which is considered a special category of sentence. It’s important to note that such a sentence can only be handed down by the High Court or the Supreme Court, not by the trial court. Therefore, it became evident that the trial court did not possess the legal authority to issue such a sentence. In light of this discrepancy, Miranda’s appeal was partially allowed. The court proceeded to modify the portions of the order that were legally impermissible and subsequently disposed of the case.