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

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that though the woman had died in a tragic manner and there were matrimonial disputes between the couple, the accused could not be made liable unless there were legally acceptable evidence connecting him to the crime. The court also noted that the possibility of a suicide could also not be ruled out and the deceased could have committed suicide by self immolation.

“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 said.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Vendaraja, who was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. The case of prosecution was that he had set his wife ablaze.

The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the father of the deceased. According to the complainant, the husband would often quarrel with the deceased and suspected her fidelity. It was submitted that 3 months prior to the occurrence, he had accused the deceased of giving a gold chain of 4 sovereigns to someone and had assaulted her. He had also complained that the husband often blamed the deceased for the death of their daughter and on the day of the occurrence, he had assaulted the deceased, tied her legs with a cord, poured kerosene on her, set her to fire and caused her death.

On appeal, Vendaraja argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the prosecutive witnesses had a motive to depose falsely. It was submitted that at the time of the occurrence, he was working elsewhere and had nothing to do with the occurrence. He submitted that his wife committed self immolation and that it was not a case of murder.

The court noted that as per the deposition of the father of the deceased, the accused Vendaraja came running from his house at 1:30 pm holding a knife and told him that he had finished off the deceased and ran away from the spot. After this, when he rushed to his daughter's house, he found a scream emanating from there and the house was locked from outside. When he and others forcefully entered the house, he found his daughter's body completely charred. The court however observed that the father had not informed the police about the accused running away with the knife.

The court also considered the testimony of the sister of the deceased who said that she alone had entered the house and informed her father about the incident. The court thus noted that there were discrepancies in the testimony of the witness.

The court also noted that the relative of the deceased, who lived nearby, had testified that he had heard a scream 15 minutes after the accused had left the house. The court noted that the testimony destroyed the prosecution case since a person would have screamed when he/she was set ablaze. The court thus opined that the testimony was consistent with the stand taken by the accused that the wife had self-immolated herself.

The court opined that the trial court had casually brushed aside the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the recovery of material objects. The court noted that the deceased was a well-built woman, and her hands were not found tied. The court opined that it was difficult to believe that the accused had tied the legs of the deceased on his own and without anyone's aid.

Thus, noting that the prosecution case was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the court allowed the appeal, acquitting the husband of all charges.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M. Sankar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Vendaraja v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 80

Case No: Crl.A.(MD)No.204 of 2021