Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said just because a man has strained relationship with his wife, it does not mean he has caused burn injuries to her.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted Suraj Bhan of the charges of murdering his wife, more than 13 years after he remained in incarceration.

In the case, the bench said, "there is no evidence on record to show that they had a strained relationship. Secondly, only on the ground of strained relationship, one cannot jump to a conclusion that the appellant is the author of the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted," the bench said.

The court noted here that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 13 years.

The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnised in November, 1999. The incident happened on the intervening night of July 7-8, 2003. The appellant admitted the deceased in the Civil Hospital at Sonepat with 90 % burn injuries. Dr V K Gupta, who examined the deceased, found that the deceased was unfit to make a statement. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital in Delhi. 

On July 8, 2003, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in which she stated that the appellant (husband) caught her and poured kerosene on her person. Thereafter, the accused nos 2 and 3 set her ablaze with a match stick. She stated that she was treated in this fashion as she could not comply with the demand of dowry of Rs 40,000 or more. 

Relying upon the dying declaration, the trial court convicted all the three accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court, however, acquitted the accused nos 2 and 3 and confirmed the conviction of the appellant. 

Going through the HC's judgment, the bench noted it discarded the case of the prosecution regarding dying declaration and also rejected the testimony of sister of the deceased on the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before her. The High Court found that father of the victim did not support the prosecution on the issue of demand of dowry.

The appellant contended that on the same set of evidence, accused no 2 and 3 have been acquitted. The order of their acquittal has not been assailed by the State and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

The state counsel, however, pointed out the High Court has relied upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has held that the appellant failed to explain in what circumstances the deceased suffered burn injuries, especially when both of them were residing in the same house. He submitted that on the failure of the appellant to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant.

The bench, however, said, it is a case of no evidence against the appellant and other accused. 

"In such a situation, the High Court could not have relied upon the rebuttable presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the sole basis of conviction as the prosecution has not the discharged the initial burden. Apart from Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the trial court came to the conclusion that there was a motive for committing the offence as the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained," the bench said.

The court set aside the High Court's judgment and acquitted Suraj Bhan in the case.