Case Ruling – Proving Presence Of Matrimonial Disputes Not Enough to Hold Accused Guilty
The Madras High Court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife ablaze. The court ruled that there was no legally acceptable evidence linking him to the crime. A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that while the woman’s death was tragic, the possibility of suicide could not be ruled out.
The bench stated that proving presence of matrimonial disputes was not enough to hold the accused guilty. The court noted there must be legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Background of the Case
The accused, Vendaraja, was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that he poured kerosene on his wife, set her on fire, and caused her death.
The case was registered based on a complaint by the deceased woman’s father. He claimed that Vendaraja frequently fought with his wife, accused her of infidelity, and blamed her for their daughter’s death. He also alleged that three months before the incident, the accused had beaten his wife over a missing gold chain.
On the day of the incident, the complainant claimed that Vendaraja assaulted his wife, tied her legs with a cord, and set her on fire.
Petitioner’s Stance
Vendaraja appealed against his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He claimed that the witnesses had motives to falsely accuse him. He also submitted that he was at work at the time of the incident and had no involvement in his wife’s death.
According to him, his wife died by suicide. He maintained that the prosecution failed to establish murder.
Respondents’ Stance
The deceased woman’s father testified that he saw the accused running away with a knife and claiming that he had “finished off” his wife. However, the court noted that he did not inform the police about this.
The sister of the deceased provided a conflicting account, stating that she alone had discovered the incident. The court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, which weakened the prosecution’s case.
A key witness, a relative of the deceased, testified that he heard a scream 15 minutes after Vendaraja left the house. The court observed that if the accused had set his wife on fire, she would have screamed immediately. This supported the claim that she had self-immolated.
Court’s Observations
The court found multiple discrepancies in witness testimonies and the handling of material evidence. The judges found it difficult to believe that the accused could have restrained her without assistance.
The trial court, the bench observed, had dismissed crucial inconsistencies without proper examination. Given the lack of concrete evidence, the court ruled in favor of the accused.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court set aside Vendaraja’s conviction, citing a failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be based on suspicion alone.
