Meghalaya HC acquits woman in husband, son murder case, sets aside life term

The Meghalaya High Court has acquitted a woman from West Jaiñtia Hills district who was convicted of killing her husband and son and grievously injuring her infant daughter

The Meghalaya High Court has acquitted a woman from West Jaiñtia Hills district who was convicted of killing her husband and son and grievously injuring her infant daughter, ruling that there was “absolutely no evidence” to establish what transpired inside the house where the incident occurred.

The ruling effectively brings to a close a case that began over 20 years ago.

A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh, in its Wednesday judgment, set aside the 2021 conviction of Porthmi Bthuh, holding that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove its case and that the chain of circumstantial evidence was “far from complete.”

The ruling effectively brings to a close a case that began over 20 years ago.

A domestic quarrel in 2003 allegedly turned violent. According to the prosecution, Porthmi attacked her husband, Kor, with a machete, fatally wounding him. Her four-year-old son, Donmi, also died from injuries sustained during the incident, while her two-year-eight-month-old daughter survived with grievous wounds.

Porthmi herself was found with self-inflicted injuries.

But beyond these bare facts, the case was riddled with uncertainty from the start.

There were no eyewitnesses. No one saw what unfolded inside the house. The FIR was not filed by the family—who had reportedly settled the matter—but by the village headman, who later admitted he had signed it without reading its contents.

Investigators recovered two bloodstained daos but never sent them for forensic analysis. Witnesses who testified during the trial could only speak of the aftermath—seeing the accused holding a dao—but none could describe the sequence of events or who inflicted the injuries.

The prosecution’s case ultimately hinged on a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) a day after the accused’s arrest. However, the High Court found the confession legally untenable, citing multiple procedural violations, including failure to provide reflection time and the absence of mandatory safeguards.

“There is nothing to indicate… that the appellant was given any time to reflect,” the bench noted.

With the confession collapsing and no independent evidence to fill the gaps, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the end, what remained was a case built on suspicion—but never proven, even after two decades.