SUDHAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.No.503 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court - I), Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) THE prosecution case is briefly as follows : The accused Sudhan married Bindu as per customary rites on 2.9.1989 and in that wedlock, two children were born to them. The prosecution alleges that the accused began to ill treat Bindu, demanding more amounts on different occasions and as Bindu was not amenable to the pressure tactics, on 28.2.2001 at about 11.45 in the night, the accused poured kerosene on the body of Bindu and set her on fire at the house of accused with the intention to kill her and ensured her death by delaying to take her to the hospital and as a result of serious burn injuries sustained, Bindu succumbed to the injuries on 1.3.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. CW1, the father of deceased Bindu gave Ext.P12 F.I. statement before the police stating that deceased Bindu had told him that accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. Before the Additional Sessions Court, on the prosecution side, PW1 to PW23 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21(a) and Ext.X1 were marked and MO1 to MO8 were identified. On the defence side, Ext.D1 was marked. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence on record, found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed this appeal.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following arguments: There is no direct evidence to prove the prosecution case. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn is not fully established. The facts proved beyond doubt were not consistent with the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances are not conclusive in nature to find the accused guilty of the offences. The chain of evidence is not complete and the evidence adduced is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the prosecution has not proved that in all probability, the act must have been done by the accused. The court below has not ruled out the possibility of suicide holding that the accused has not taken a defence to that effect. PW4, the son of the deceased, who is now aged 15 years did not support the prosecution case as also the neighbours, PW6, PW7 and PW8, the driver of the car in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. The burn injury sustained by the accused has not been explained by the prosecution. The accused was arrested on 3.3.2001 and the burn injuries sustained by the accused have been noted in Ext.P17 remand report dated 4.3.2001. It is stated in Ext.P17 remand report that the accused had burn injuries on the right hand throughout and on his fingers, on his chest below the nipple and above the right knee. The accused had attempted to blow out the fire and hence these injuries have been caused. The accused had taken water from the nearby tank and poured on the deceased to blow out the fire and hence these injuries have been caused. In Ext.P12 F.I. statement, CW1 has stated that he thinks that the son-in-law might have poured kerosene over the body of the deceased Bindu and thereby she succumbed to the injuries. If the deceased had told him that the accused had poured kerosene over her and set her ablaze, CW1 would not have stated that he thinks that the accused might have done as stated above, when he gave the F.I. statement on 1.3.2001 at 11 a.m. The chain of circumstances narrated by the trial court to fasten the guilt of the accused is not a complete chain of evidence to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against the accused on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the court below.