Uthra Murder: Suraj Prefers Appeal Against His Conviction, Kerala High Court Issues Notice To State

In a further development in the Uthra murder case, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday admitted an appeal preferred by Suraj, challenging his conviction by the Kollam Additional District and Sessions Court for throwing a starving cobra on his wife while she was asleep, to induce her death by snakebite.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to the State in the matter.

Suraj was sentenced to double life imprisonment and a five lakh fine for murdering his wife by inducing a homicidal snakebite. He was also awarded 10 years and 7 years of imprisonment in two other cases for causing hurt by means of poison and destroying evidence. The sentencing was to run consecutively.

Aggrieved by the finding and the sentencing order passed against him, Suraj moved the High Court with an appeal. 

The appeal filed through Advocate John S. Ralph denied all the contentions raised by the prosecution and claimed that Uthra died from a natural snakebite. It was further argued that the evidence of the approver was tainted and therefore not to be relied upon for the case. 

Suraj in his appeal has argued that the alleged motive is a 'cooked-up story' and that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the same. The appellant has further pointed out the absence of DNA evidence in the case. 

In fact, it is stated that several snakes were spotted in his locality frequently and that it was for this reason that he had contacted Chavarukavu Suresh. However, the appellant claims that Suresh failed to find any snakes on his visit. 

Further, the appeal adds that Suraj was incapable of handling snakes and more importantly that Uthra was not a woman with disabilities as contended by the prosecution. 

According to Suraj, the expert committee report relied on by the prosecution to prove that the snake could not have entered the room on its own are theories crafted by 'incompetent experts' and are not backed by any authorities.

He added that Uthra was rushed to the hospital without undue delay and that he had only insisted on calling a neighbour to drive the vehicle instead of driving himself since he has poor eyesight. Therefore, it was contended that there was no unnatural conduct on part of the appellant.

The appeal also pointed out that despite the approver claiming that there was a constant exchange of messages and videos between them, nothing was produced on record to prove the same.

In a rather surprising argument, Suraj challenges the case being one involving a snake bite at all, on the ground that Uthra was admitted to the hospital for 'unknown bite' and that her case was not recorded in the snakebite register.

It was added that the two doctors who treated the deceased were not examined by the protection and that the trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference from the same.

"There is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was bitten by a viper whereas there is non-examination of material witness by the prosecution," the plea reads.

As such, it has been contended that the Sessions Court convicted him on a 'wrong appreciation of evidence' and that he is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. 

Also Read: Uthra Case: 27 Circumstances Which Proved Murder Using Live Cobra

Case Title: Suraj S. Kumar v. State of Kerala