POOLAKKAL KUNCHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is by the accused against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life on the charge of murdering his wife at 2.30 a.m. during the night in between 12 and 13-11-1982 by setting fire after pouring petrol and kerosene.

(2.) The appellant Poolakkal Kunchu married deceased kunhilakshmi 7 yeas prior to the occurrence. They had three children. On account of strained relationship deceased and her children were living along with her father over since 2 years prior to her death. She had the complaint that nothing was paid for maintenance and her ornaments were appropriated by him. Along with her children she offered satyagraha in his jeep. There was mediation by P.Ws. 9, 10 and others. It was agreed that the appellant will pay Rs. 10,000/- in one month and divorce will be effected. Amount was not paid. It was in this background that on the night in between 12 and 13-11-1982 at about 2.30 the deceased went running to the residence of P.W. 2 with burns stating that while sleeping along with the appellant in his residence he poured petrol or kerosene over her body and dress and set fire by lighting match stick. She was first taken to the Mannarghat hospital from where P.W. 13 gave first aid and referred her to the District Hospital, Palghat while at the District Hospital, Palghat she died at 9.55 a.m. the same day.

(3.) Appellant, his father P.W. 8 Krishna Tharakan, the deceased and children were residing together at the residence of the appellant. While the prosecution case is that after the deceased and children left, the appellant and father continued residence in the same house, the defence version is that appellant shifted residence to his sisters house. Prosecution version is that on 12-11-1982 at about 3 p.m. the deceased and children went to the house of the appellant and stayed with him since he accommodated them. It is further alleged that while the deceased was sleeping along with him inside the room, he treacherously poured kerosene or petrol and set fire to her dress. Plea of the appellant was a total denial coupled with a contention that he was not at all there. It is also his case that the house was remaining uninhabited and his father P.W. 8, also shifted residence along with his brother. The defence is that the deceased might have committed suicide by burning herself at the house where she was formerly residing along with the appellant and which was lying uninhabited at the time of occurrence.