Meghalaya HC acquits woman in 2015 husband murder case, cites lack of proof

The high court has now quashed both the conviction and sentence and directed her immediate release if she is not wanted in any other case

The Meghalaya high court acquitted a woman who was serving a life sentence for allegedly murdering her husband in 2015, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The high court found that each of the three principal circumstances relied upon by the prosecution suffered from serious infirmities. (Representative Photo/Unsplash)

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh set aside the conviction of Jenorin D Sangma, holding that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence but failed to satisfy the stringent legal standards required for conviction.

“The prosecution has failed to prove that the circumstances unequivocally point to the guilt of the appellant. Neither is the chain of evidence complete to show that, in all human probability, it is the appellant and the appellant alone who is the perpetrator,” the bench observed while allowing the criminal appeal.

Jenorin was convicted by the sessions judge, Ri-Bhoi district, in February 2020 for the murder of her husband, Dhantaru Mushahary, and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with a separate sentence for causing disappearance of evidence.

The high court has now quashed both the conviction and sentence and directed her immediate release if she is not wanted in any other case.

According to the prosecution, the woman confessed in 2017 to village elders that she killed her husband two years earlier and buried his body on a hillside in Chibra village. The case was registered after the village headman alerted the police.

However, the high court found that each of the three principal circumstances relied upon by the prosecution suffered from serious infirmities.

The bench said that although the prosecution sought to establish an extra-judicial confession through several witnesses, the first informant and village headman—before whom the confession was allegedly made—turned hostile during trial, substantially weakening the prosecution’s case.

While some witnesses claimed the appellant admitted to killing her husband, the court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is inherently weak evidence unless supported by strong corroborative material.

Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the bench observed that such confessions “have to be examined with greater care and caution” and must inspire confidence while being corroborated by a complete chain of circumstances.

The judges also rejected reliance on the confession of co-accused Prabhat, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead of implicating the appellant, the statement revealed that when Prabhat allegedly reached the house, the victim’s body was already lying on the veranda and four unidentified men were present.

“Nothing in the said confession pinpoints to the complicity of the appellant,” the court observed, adding that the statement instead raised troubling questions about the identity and role of the four men, which investigators had failed to examine.

Equally damaging, the bench found, was the prosecution’s failure to legally establish recovery of the body.

The court pointed out that no memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act had been prepared to demonstrate that the appellant had voluntarily disclosed the location of the body.

Instead, witnesses suggested it was the police who led them to the burial site, rendering the alleged recovery unreliable.

Adding to the prosecution’s difficulties, the judges noted that no DNA examination had been produced to conclusively establish that the exhumed skeletal remains were those of the deceased husband.

“First and foremost, we find that there is no memorandum panchnama... The recovery evidence is shaky and implicit reliance cannot be placed on the same,” the bench said.

The court further said that the alleged murder occurred in 2015 but was reported only in 2017, and the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances capable of excluding every hypothesis except the appellant’s guilt.

Allowing the appeal, the high court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, ordered refund of any fine deposited by her, and sought a report from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Ri-Bhoi, within eight weeks on whether compensation recommended by the trial court had been paid to the deceased’s minor children under the Victim Compensation Scheme.