Husband Being A 'Drunkard' Can't Lead To Presumption That He Killed Wife Over Strained Relationship: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction

The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence. “Just because the accused person and the deceased had a strained relationship and the accused person was a drunkard, that cannot lead to a presumption that it is only the accused person who could have committed the offence,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Senthilmurugan against his conviction by the Sessions Court, Fast Track Court in Virudhunagar District for offences under Section 302 of the IPC. The sessions court had sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. According to the prosecution, Senthilmurugan and his wife were married in April 2011 and were blessed with children. It was further alleged that Senthilmurugan was addicted to alcohol and was not going to work following an injury and developed frequent quarrels with his wife, which strained the relationship. It was alleged that on November 20, 2017, Senthilmurugan entered the kitchen, tied a towel around his wife's neck and strangulated her. It was alleged that the accused hit his wife with a blunt part of a cutting tool used in the kitchen, and ultimately the wife died due to cardio-respiratory arrest. Based on the confession, the case was registered, the trial commenced, and Senthilmurugan was convicted. On appeal, Senthilmurugan argued that there was no evidence to establish that he had committed the crime and the trial court had rendered findings on surmises and by relying on the recovery of material objects. The court noted that the entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The court also noted that even as per prosecution witnesses, they had come to know of the incident when the son of the couple had informed them about the same. The court noted that the son, who is alleged to have witnessed the crim was surprisingly not examined by the prosecution. The court observed that if the son had been examined, the prosecution would have been able to prove the case more easily and the last seen theory could have been establishing, shifting the burden to the accused person to explain what really happened inside the house, failing which an adverse inference could have been gathered under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court condemned the failure of the investigation officer to record the statement of the son or call him as a witness. “The Investigation Officer has not cared to record the statement of the boy during the investigation nor has included the boy as one of the witnesses in the list of witnesses nor has taken steps to examine the boy as a witness before the Court. This is a very serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer,” the court said. The court noted that the trial court was swayed by the fact that the couple had a strained relationship and proceeded to convict the appellant. The court underlined that even a strong suspicion is not enough to convict a person and the case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. “It is now too well settled that even a strong suspicion is not enough to convict a person and the prosecution has to necessarily prove each circumstance in the chain beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, a strong suspicion cannot be a substitute for proving the case beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution,” the court observed. Thus, noting that the benefit of doubt was in favour of the appellant and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Karuppasamypandiyan Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Case No: Crl. A(MD)No.638 of 2023Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Husband Being A 'Drunkard' Can't Lead To Presumption That He Killed Wife Over Strained Relationship: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction

Upasana Sajeev

Tags