‘Bad marriage, alcoholism not proof enough’: 9 years on, Madras High Court acquits husband over wife’s murder

Wife’s death in 2017

• The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his wife were married in April 2011.
• While at his workplace, the appellant sustained serious injuries which resulted in a left femur fracture and as a result, he was unable to continue working.
• It was alleged that he was addicted to alcohol and did not resume work, and hence developed frequent quarrels with his wife.
• In November 2017, the appellant allegedly hit his wife with the blunt part of a cutting tool used in the kitchen, causing her death.
• The trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and subsequently convicted the appellant under the said section.
• He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
• Feeling aggrieved by the conviction, he moved the Madras High Court.
• The main ground urged by the appellant’s counsel was that there was no evidence to establish that he had committed the crime and that the trial court had rendered the findings on surmises.

‘Strong suspicion no substitute’

• The last seen theory is one of the most important links in this case.
• There is no witness who speaks about the fact that the accused person was available inside the house before or at the time of the occurrence. If that is so, in the absence of examining the son of the appellant, there is no material to link the accused person to the incident.
• In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is the prosecution which has to prove each circumstance that forms a chain so as to completely exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
• The trial court, unfortunately, was swayed by the strained relationship between the appellant and the wife.
• It is now too well settled that even a strong suspicion is not enough to convict a person and the prosecution has to necessarily prove each circumstance in the chain beyond reasonable doubt.

• In other words, a strong suspicion cannot be a substitute for proving the case beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
• The chain of circumstances got snapped when the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness to substantiate the last seen theory and committed the fatal mistake of not examining the appellant’s son, who is one of the most important witnesses, who could have spoken about the incident.
• This serious lapse on the part of the investigation officer has to be necessarily condemned.
• In a case involving circumstantial evidence, when two views are possible, the accused will also be entitled to the benefit of doubt on the one which is favourable to him.