Calcutta High Court Confirms Husband’s Conviction in Wife’s Death

Summary

In a case closely watched for its legal and emotional complexity, the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of Krishna Tewari under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC for the death of his wife, who died within two and a half years of marriage. The Court held that the husband’s inability to explain the cause of death, the circumstances of injuries, and the attempt to cremate the body without medical clearance amounted to strong circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt. However, the conviction under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) was modified to Section 201/511 IPC, as the act of destruction was only attempted, not completed.

Brief facts of the case

• The wife of the appellant, Krishna Tewari, died in her matrimonial home shortly after giving birth.
• Prosecution alleged that the husband was present in the house at the time of death, attempted to cremate the body secretly by the riverbank, and failed to inform the police or obtain a medical certificate.
• Post-mortem showed multiple contusions and fractured ribs, inconsistent with natural death or childbirth complications.
• Eyewitnesses testified to past domestic violence and that the husband tried to dispose of the body.
• The Trial Court convicted Krishna under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 IPC.
• Krishna appealed, claiming death was due to postpartum complications or asthma.

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case

• Section 498A IPC – Cruelty to wife by husband or in-laws.
• Section 302 IPC – Murder.
• Section 201/511 IPC – Attempt to cause disappearance of evidence.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act – Special knowledge burden on the accused.
• Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s examination.

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner (Krishna Tewari):

• Claimed the death was due to natural causes like weakness from childbirth or asthma.
• Argued that post-mortem findings were inconclusive and not reliable as standalone evidence.
• Alleged lapses in the investigation—no sketch map, no murder weapon recovered, and procedural irregularities in FIR recording and Section 313 CrPC examination.
• Contended that at most, the case amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC).

Respondent (State of West Bengal):

• Highlighted that the victim had visible injuries and fractured ribs, indicating assault.
• Appellant’s presence at home during death and failed cremation attempt raised suspicion.
• Asserted that only the husband could explain the cause of death as the incident occurred inside his home.
• Relied on the doctrine of adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Court’s Observation

• The Court accepted the prosecution’s chain of circumstantial evidence: presence of the husband, victim’s injuries, hurried attempt to cremate without following legal protocol, and lack of credible medical explanation from the accused.
• It dismissed the defence claim of postpartum complications, pointing out that no evidence (e.g., medical records, doctor’s testimony) was provided to support this.
• Eyewitness accounts were found credible, especially the testimony of para residents who stopped the cremation and saw injuries.
• The High Court affirmed that medical evidence, though not sacrosanct, was consistent with unnatural death and indicative of physical assault.
• Held that since the attempt to destroy evidence was unsuccessful, Section 201 IPC was wrongly applied and should be read with Section 511 IPC.

Conclusion of the Judgment

• The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
• Modified the charge under Section 201 IPC to Section 201/511 IPC.
• Found no reason to interfere with the life sentence, given the seriousness of the offence and the failed attempt to destroy evidence.
• Noted that the appellant had already served over 13 years and may apply for remission after completing 14 years, as per Section 433A CrPC.

Comments from the author of this website 

Reading this judgment felt like being hit twice—once with the law and once with its silence on a husband’s side of the story. As a man who’s seen firsthand how marriage disputes often become one-sided narratives, this case unsettled me deeply.

Yes, the loss of a life—any life—is tragic. But I can’t help but wonder: was Krishna ever given a fair chance to prove his innocence? From the start, the burden was placed entirely on him to explain how his wife died. The court leaned heavily on the fact that she died in his home—but does that alone prove guilt? What about medical records? What about due process in questioning, evidence collection, or police documentation?

It felt like the moment the prosecution said “dowry” and “dead wife,” the rest was just filling in the gaps.

If the accused had no history of violence, no criminal record, and lacked motive—shouldn’t that count? What about his claim that the injuries could have resulted from childbirth? Instead of investigating that route, the narrative was sealed: husband = culprit.

This is not a defence of violence. It’s a call for balanced inquiry. A man’s silence doesn’t always mean guilt. Sometimes it means nobody listened.

Final Thoughts

This case lays bare the tension between seeking justice for victims and ensuring fairness for the accused—particularly when the accused is a husband. The doctrine of “last seen” or “special knowledge” must be applied with caution, not certainty.

We must ask: are we punishing on facts or presumptions? Are all procedural lapses by the system ignored if the accused is a man?

There must be space in our courts to consider alternate explanations, overlooked evidence, and the possibility that silence is not always sinister. Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done, on both sides.

Read Complete Judgement Here