Matrimonial Dispute Not Ground To Conclude That Husband Set Ablaze Wife, Must Prove Allegations With Legally Acceptable Evidence: Madras HC

Post By 24law
February 28, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife ablaze, ruling that there was no legally acceptable evidence connecting him to the crime. The Court emphasized that while matrimonial disputes existed between the couple, this alone could not establish guilt in the absence of conclusive proof.

Court’s Observations on Lack of Evidence

A division bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima stated: “It is quite possible that the deceased committed suicide by self immolation. We do not for a moment suggest that the evidence on record points only to suicide. But then, the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out. The victim had died in a tragic manner. Merely because it has been shown that there were serious matrimonial disputes between the deceased and the accused, we cannot jump to the conclusion that it was the accused who had set fire to his wife. There must be legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime.”

Background of the Case

The appeal was filed by Vendaraja, who was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur, for offenses under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The prosecution alleged that Vendaraja set his wife ablaze after tying her legs with a cord and pouring kerosene on her. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the deceased’s father, who claimed that the accused frequently quarreled with his wife and suspected her fidelity. According to the complainant, three months before the incident, the accused accused his wife of giving away a gold chain and assaulted her. On the day of the occurrence, he allegedly blamed her for their child’s death, tied her legs, poured kerosene, and set her on fire.

Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies

The High Court, upon analyzing the evidence, found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The father of the deceased testified that the accused ran from the house holding a knife, claiming he had “finished off” his wife. However, the Court noted that the father “did not tell during police investigation that the accused was found running with a knife in his hands.”

The Court also scrutinized the statement of the deceased’s sister, who initially testified that she alone entered the house and informed her father, contradicting his claim that he had rushed to the house upon hearing screams and was the first to discover the incident. Additionally, a nearby relative testified that he heard a scream 15 minutes after the accused had left the house, which contradicted the prosecution’s timeline, as a victim would likely scream when set ablaze. The Court remarked: “What shakes the credibility of P.W.1's testimony is that he heard the scream 15 minutes after the accused ran away. This completely destroys the prosecution case which is that the accused set fire to his wife and locked the house from outside and then ran away.”

Prosecution’s Failure to Establish Guilt

The Court observed that the trial court had failed to address key inconsistencies, including the recovery of material objects and the possibility of self-immolation. It highlighted that the deceased was a well-built woman, and her hands were not tied, making it unlikely that the accused single-handedly restrained her. The judgment stated: “It is not in dispute that the deceased suffered 100% burns and the body was found charred. The witnesses claim that her legs were tied. If that be so, the rope would have also been burnt. It is admitted that M.O.2-rope was found burnt only at the top. This aspect has also been casually brushed aside by the court below.”

Verdict: Acquittal of the Husband

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court overturned the conviction, stating: “For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has not established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned Judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.” The Court further directed that the bail bond be discharged and any fine paid by the appellant be refunded immediately.