1988 Supreme(SC) 690

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Subedar Tewari, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 370-371 of 1987 and 576-577 of 1988 (arising out of Spl. Leave Petns. Nos. 1981-82 of 1987)
Decided on 3-11-1988.
AND
State of U.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Narendra Nath Tewari and another, Respondents.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appeals against acquittal for the offence under-Unnatural death of a wife by burnig within nine monts of her marriage with a doctor husband-Deceased was a person with high academic qualifications-Death occurred in the kitchen at 4.00 A.M.-Husband and his sister were the only other occupants of the house-Accident and suicide are excluded-Her matrimonial life was disturbed-Neigher the husband nor his sister explained about what happended on the night of the tragedy-No explanation with regared to the find of a towel and handkerchief with black stains from the bed room-The subsequent conduct of the husband lends assurance to the homicide theory-Husband absconding for about a month-Motive of crime not proved-Finding of acquittal recorde in favour of husband is set aside-Conviction u/s 302 with a sentence of imprisonment for life.

       Held : Both the trial court as well as the High Court have concluded that accident is ruled out. There is conclusive and unimpeachable evidence to show that the stove was on the rack and that it was not burning. So also no cooked food or tea was found. The stove was empty. Therefore, the possibility of accident must be altogether excluded unhesitatingly. What is more, whether it was accident or she set herself on fire or someone else set her on fire, the incident must have occurred between midnight and early hours of the morning There was no conceivable reason at this hour to go to the kitchen in order to light the stove or to prepare any article of food or drink. Everything was neatly arranged in the kitchen as is disclosed by the evidence of PW2, the milkman, who was the first to enter the flat at 7.00 a.m., He has clearly stated that no stove was burning. (Para 16)

       The debate has centered round the question as to whether suicide can be excluded. The trial court and the High Court have differed on this point. (Para 17)

       It is extremely unlikely that an educated woman of this academic distinction who was prepared to face her problems and was optimistically looking forward to the furure beyond her marital home would be inclined to commit suicide by burning herself when as disclosed by the extracts from the letters which she had written to her parents she was not cowed down by her marital problem. She did not think that she had reached a dead end or that she had nothing to live for. She was not depressed or frustrated. As a matter of fact she had resolved to break with her husband and return to her parents’ house at Patna in order to prosecute further studies and obtain a job and launch upon a new life.

       Thus she was not a woman who had broken down on account of marital discord or lost interest in life. She was a woman who had resolved to break herself from her husband and to start her life afresh. This discloses a strong character and a strong will to live. (Para 17)

       Further held: The only reason for the discord was the obnoxious atmosphere (so revolting that she as a decent person could not pen it) and the humiliating treatment meted out to her. In one of her letters (ex. Ka. 2) she stated that she was being looked upon as an uncultured and uneducated person. Possibly she was hinting at the promiscuous or permissive life-style of her husband who considered her life view as conservative. This factor of unhappiness was not a new factor. She had refused to be buckled down there under and had already overcome this fact. She bad resolved to leave her marital home for good. Thereafter she had visited her parental home and had returned only twenty days back. Why should she commit suicide suddenly at 1.00 a.m. on the morning. (Para 17)

       The kitchen in which she was found lying was approximately 3 metres in length and 1.80 meters in breadth as recorded in Ex. Ka. 35. In other words, the kitchen which had its door on the East was less than 10 feet in length and about 5.88 feet in width (north-south). She was lying prostrate on the floor in a space of less than six feet. The electric bulb in the kitchen was missing. As the panchnama shows, an empty container of kerosene was found in the kitchen. No match box was found inside the kitchen. The stove was neatly arranged on the shelf. Every other article and everything else was neatly arranged in the kitchen. This is not suggestive of suicide. The medical evidence shows that the body was found in a pugilistic attitude and in a fencing posture. It means that the body must have got coagulated to about 65° C. For generating beat of this order, she must have drenched herself with a large quantity of kerosene or some other catalyst agent. How could such intense heat have been generated? The heat was so intense that her brain was cooked. If some large quantity of catalyst had been poured on herself and fire bad been applied by herself she would have been in intolerable and intense pain. She would have shouted and screamed. She would have run about how did it happen that in the dark kitchen where she set herself on fire she neatly slumped down on the ground in a prostrate position that too in a dark kitchen with less than 6 fillet width l U she bad shouted and screamed in the stillness of night, it would have aroused the occupants of the adjoining flats as also the two accused who were sleeping undisturbed in the adjoining rooms. (Para 17)