Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 904
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
State - Appellant
Versus
Jayabalan - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1995
Decided On : 04 September 2002
Headnote:
Accused was convicted of murder for intentionally causing the death of his wife by hitting her with a blunt object, pouring kerosene on her, and setting her on fire. The court found that the accused's defense of suicide or accident was not supported by the evidence and that the accused's conduct after the incident, including his failure to help his wife or explain his injuries, indicated guilt. The court also found that the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and corroborated by other evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Vasanthi, was married to the accused, Jayabalan, and they had two children. The couple had frequent quarrels, and Vasanthi's parents had persuaded her to adjust with the accused. On the day of the incident, Vasanthi came to her parents' house with her daughter and six-month-old son. She took breakfast there and then went back to her husband's house. At about 9.25 am, Vasanthi's brother and sisters heard her screams. They went to her house and found the accused jumping out of the bathroom without any clothes on. They also found Vasanthi burning inside the bathroom. They put out the fire and took Vasanthi to the hall, where she died. The accused was taken to the hospital for treatment of burn injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was guilty of murder. The court found that the accused's defense of suicide or accident was not supported by the evidence. The court also found that the accused's conduct after the incident, including his failure to help his wife or explain his injuries, indicated guilt. The court also found that the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and corroborated by other evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused's defense of suicide or accident was supported by the evidence. 2. Whether the accused's conduct after the incident, including his failure to help his wife or explain his injuries, indicated guilt. 3. Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and corroborated by other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the accused's defense of suicide or accident was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that there was no evidence to support the accused's claim that the deceased had committed suicide. The court also noted that the accused's claim that the incident was an accident was not supported by the evidence, as there was no evidence to explain how the deceased's injuries were caused. 2. The court found that the accused's conduct after the incident, including his failure to help his wife or explain his injuries, indicated guilt. The court noted that the accused had not attempted to help his wife or explain his injuries to the people who had gathered at the scene. The court also noted that the accused had given inconsistent statements about how he had sustained his injuries. 3. The court found that the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and corroborated by other evidence. The court noted that the deceased had made the statement shortly before her death and that it was consistent with the other evidence in the case.
Final Decision: The court found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
P. SHANMUGAM, J.
The State represented by the Public Prosecutor has filed the above appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.
2. The accused is the husband. He was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having beaten his wife Vasanthi with a blunt object, poured kerosene over her and set fire to her, thereby committing murder by intentionally causing the death of his wife on 29.5.1992 at about 9.20 am in his house at No.95, Subbayya Nagar, Pondicherry. The Sessions Court found that the prosecution could not make out the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The appeal is against this judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution is stated hereunder; the accused before the Sessions Court shall be hereinafter referred to as the respondent :
The marriage between the respondent Jayabalan and Vasanthi, the deceased took place on 5.9.1988. They have two children, one aged 2-1/2 years and the other aged six months as on the date of the occurrence namely 29.5.1992. Vasanthi, comes from a big family of six children, consisting of four sisters and two brothers. She was employed as a Nurse in the T.B. Hospital, Pondicherry and the respondent was employed as a Teacher in Alankuppam Government School, Pondicherry. It was an arranged marriage and the couple were living separately, just opposite to the house of Vasanthi's parents, the two houses being divided by a 20' wide road. The respondent used to collect all the salary of Vasanthi and used to be very strict in allowing her to spend her money and he was in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of Vasanthi whenever she used to talk with a male person. Because of this, there used to be frequent quarrels between the couple. Some time in July 1992, two months prior to the death of Vasanthi, she is said to have complained to her parents that she could not live with the respondent any longer and that she had an apprehension that if she continued to live with him, he will kill her. However, her parents persuaded her to adjust with him since she had three younger sisters yet to be married and thereafter, she went back to her husband's house. Just 15 days prior to her death, there was a quarrel between the couple in connection with the ear-boring ceremony of their children. While the respondent wanted to spend lavishly and celebrate the ceremony along with the ear-boring ceremony of his brother' children, for which the deceased did not agree, but wanted a function as simple as possible without much expenditure. The ear-boring ceremony was fixed on 1.6.1992.
4. While so, on Friday, the 29th of May 1992, Vasanthi came to her parents' house with her daughter and six months old son and took her breakfast. Thereafter, she went back to her husband's house. The girl was taken to her school by Vasanthi's sister. After she left her parents' house, Vasanthi's father took his wife, i.e. Vasanthi's mother to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry for some treatment. At about 9.10 am, when the baby started crying, Vasanthi's younger sister Chitra took the child, went to her sister's house which was opposite to their house, left the child there after informing about the same to her sister Vasanthi.
5. At about 9.25 am on 29.5.1992, the brother and sister of Vasanthi heard her screams. Immediately, they went to their sister's house and found the respondent jumping and coming out from the bathroom without any clothes on his body. It was noticed that he had suffered burn injuries. The respondent is said to have requested P.W.1, the brother of Vasanthi, who had come there upon hearing the screams of her sister, to call for an auto-rickshaw. P.W.1 took up the baby and handed him over to his sister Chitra and requested Narayanan, their neighbour to fetch an auto-rickshaw. When the auto came, the accused got into it along with P.W.6, who was asked to accompany him. He went to the Jawa
