By Tanisha Mohanty
A homicide was proven but a murderer was not.
In the Bhubaneswar Sessions Court’s judgement in the State of Odisha v. Mr Bhoi, despite medical evidence confirming that Mrs Bhoi died due to homicide, the court acquitted her husband– as the prosecution failed to prove him guilty.
The judgment underlines an important reality of India’s criminal justice system: courts decide cases based on evidence, not suspicion or reasonable doubt. This verdict also highlights that when investigation and prosecution fails to build a complete case, even serious cases can end without conviction.
As per the prosecution, Mrs. Bhoi had been subjected to repeated mental and physical abuse by her husband. He allegedly assaulted her abdomen with a stone grinder on 16 June 2020. She was hospitalized for one and a half months before her death on August 1st.
Her nephew filed a case against the husband under Sections 498A (“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine”) and 302 (“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine”) of the Indian Penal Code, the law in force at the time of the alleged offence.
The medical evidence strongly supported that Mrs. Bhoi died from multi-organ failure caused by infections and the court accepted that her death was homicidal. However, proving that a murder occurred was just the beginning. The prosecution also had to prove who committed it and provide enough evidence to convict them.
The court found there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged assault. The informant’s testimony was also what he had been told by others while the couple’s son claimed he had not actually seen the attack. The prosecution also failed to establish evidence of dowry demands or produce a cohesive chain of evidence which linked the accused to the fatal injuries.
According to an advocate familiar with the case, the judgment is unusual because the acquittal stemmed not from conflicting evidence but from the prosecution’s inability to produce sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime during trial.
He further explained that even though the accused had a history of drinking fueled abuse–as sustained by victim’s injuries– the structural failure by the prosecution of the lower courts and the son’s statement was imperative in the acquittal of the accused.
Courts cannot convict a person merely because suspicion is strong– reliable evidence is imperative to remove any reasonable doubt. (Hanumant Vrs. the State of M.P, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343).
The judgement also reflects a broader challenge in cases of homicide and domestic violence, as privacy often means lack of eyewitnesses and sometimes concrete evidence. Secure, consistent witness statements and an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence is crucial for prosecution.
The advocate also stated that appeal in the High Court is not possible as the lack of evidence for this particular incident–despite a history of physical abuse– will not present a solid case for the appellate courts.
Ultimately, the case is about the burden of proof imposed on the prosecution in each criminal trial, not simply one acquittal. No matter how serious the accusation, the ruling reaffirms that the legal system cannot substitute suspicion for proof. Courts must respect the innocent until proven guilty concept in cases where investigations fail to produce a complete chain of proof, even if doing so allows an accused person to go free.
Note: The names of the individuals involved have been omitted at the request of counsel to protect their identities.