Serious Matrimonial Disputes Alone Cannot Prove Husband Set Wife On Fire: Madras High Court Acquits Man

The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of setting his wife on fire, ruling that there was no legally acceptable evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima noted that while the death of the woman was tragic and there were serious matrimonial disputes between the couple, mere suspicion and inconsistencies in witness testimonies could not form the basis for conviction.

The Court also observed that the possibility of suicide by self-immolation could not be ruled out.

"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," the Court observed.

The case involved an appeal filed by Vendaraja, who had been convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court under Sections 302 (murder) and 498A (cruelty to wife) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had alleged that he set his wife ablaze after an argument, following a history of domestic disputes and accusations of infidelity.

The prosecution's case was primarily based on a complaint filed by the deceased’s father, who claimed that Vendaraja often quarreled with his wife and had assaulted her over a missing gold chain. On the day of the incident, he allegedly tied her legs, poured kerosene, and set her on fire before fleeing the scene.

However, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The accused maintained that he was at work at the time of the incident and that his wife had committed suicide.

The High Court pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies. While the father of the deceased claimed he saw Vendaraja fleeing with a knife after admitting to the crime, he did not mention this to the police. Additionally, the deceased’s sister contradicted her father’s version by stating that she alone had initially discovered the incident.

Crucially, the testimony of a relative living nearby weakened the prosecution's case. He stated that he heard the victim’s scream 15 minutes after the accused had already left the house, casting doubt on the timeline presented by the prosecution.

The Court also noted that the Trial Court had overlooked key discrepancies, including the fact that the deceased, a well-built woman, had untied hands, making it improbable that the accused had restrained her without assistance.

"We are of the view that the court below did not consider these circumstances. It glibly accepted the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, & P.W. 9. It casually brushed aside the discrepancy regarding the recovery of M.O.4-house key. 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. All the witnesses also stated that Kaleeswari was a well-built woman. Admittedly, her hands were not found tied. Therefore, we find difficult to believe that the accused, on his own and without the aid of another person could have tied the legs of the deceased. Of course, the injury found on the head of the deceased has to be explained. P.W.16 states that when a person is set ablaze, he or she is bound to roll. In that process, the head injury could have been caused. He had also deposed that fire itself could have caused a blood clot in the head," the Bench said.

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court acquitted Vendaraja of all charges, emphasizing that expediency should not override principles of fairness and justice. "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 bail bond stands discharged. The fine amount, if any paid by him shall be refunded forthwith. The criminal appeal is allowed," the Court said.

Cause Title: Vendaraja v. The State [Crl.A.(MD)No.204 of 2021]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advcoate M.Sankar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor E. Anthony Sahaya Prabahar

Click here to read/download the Judgment