JUDGMENT

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J The prosecution case is one of uxoricide and the accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. There is no clarity as to the motive, which, in the charge framed by the court speaks of the accused having doubted the parentage of the child, while the prosecution witnesses speak of a quarrel just prior to the alleged crime, when the deceased wife accused the husband of infidelity; specifically a mobile conversation with another girl. The accused stood trial in which the prosecution arrayed twenty witnesses, through whom were marked Ext.P1 to P21, including Ext. P14 series. The prosecution also produced MO1 to MO17. The defense did not examine any witness but marked two contradictions as Ext.D1 and D2, respectively from the prior statements of PW7 and PW9.

2. Adv. Sherlymol Thomas, learned State Brief, argued for the appellant and Smt. Ambika Devi S., learned Special Government Pleader (Attrocities against Women and Children and Welfare of Women and Children) argued for the respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the crime. There is absolutely no motive established and the FIR registered was of an unnatural death. The wife had committed suicide by pouring kerosene over herself and lighting herself ablaze. It was the accused husband who hollered out and attracted the attention of the neighbors. The accused saved the child and brought it outside the house and everybody gathered were convinced that it was a suicide. The learned Counsel would accuse the police of having arrested the accused immediately and tortured him in custody, falsely accusing him of uxoricide. The mere fact that he was present in the house and that he had purchased kerosene cannot solely bring home a conviction under Section 302. It is evident that the ration card belongs to the mother in law, who was in inimical terms with the accused and its recovery has not been proved. There is also considerable suspicion regarding the arrest on 13.03.2011, as is projected by Ext.P14 series. The accused had a valid explanation and it was his case that the immediate relatives of his wife had not tended to her properly, during her pregnancy, which resulted in her succumbing to depression, leading to the eventual suicide. The learned Counsel relied on Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2022) 5 SCC 438 to assail the reliance of the trial Court on Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused has to be given the benefit of doubt, asserts the learned Counsel for the appellant.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader however points out that a 23 year old woman was killed by her own husband. There is proved, a history of marital discord and the accused was a quarrelsome person. Immediately prior to the crime, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and there is even premeditation discernible from the fact that the accused purchased 5 ltrs of kerosene from the ration shop just prior to the crime. It was also asserted that a mere glance at the postmortem examination report would clearly show that the theory of suicide can be totally eschewed. There was no burns on the lower half of both legs and feet. Obviously the woman was lying down when kerosene was poured over her upper body and the person set ablaze. The ration card by which the kerosene was purchased was recovered from the crime scene and the ration dealer clearly spoke of the purchase made by the accused. There is no satisfactory explanation by the accused who was with the deceased in the house, the scene of crime. The accused, after the crime, had absconded from the place. The conviction and sentence are to be upheld.

4. Admittedly the poor woman met her death on the night of the crucial day and the cause of death, as deposed by PW15, based on the postmortem examination, certified by Ext.P7, was due to burns involved in approximately 85% of body surface. The testimony of PW15 was that the antemortem injur