Jayabalan vs U.T. Of Pondicherry

3. The appellant - Jayabalan and the deceased - Vasanthi, got married on 05.09.1988 and out of the aforesaid wedlock, two children were born. The couple was living just opposite to the house of the deceased's parents, the two houses i.e. of the appellant and that of the deceased's parents being separated by a 20 feet wide road. The deceased, at the time of her death, was employed as a nurse in the T. B. Hospital, Pondicherry and the appellant was employed as a teacher in Alankuppam Government School, Pondicherry. The relationship between the appellant and the deceased was stated to be strained. The appellant used to collect the salary of the deceased and also used to be very strict in allowing the deceased to spend her money. The appellant was also in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of the deceased whenever she would talk to a male person. On account of this, there used to be frequent quarrels between the couple. In July 1992, about two months prior to the date of the incident, the deceased is said to have complained to her parents that she apprehended threat to her life from the appellant. Just fifteen days prior to the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between the couple in connection with the ear piercing ceremony of their children. It has been 2 alleged that while the appellant wanted to spend lavishly and celebrate the ear piercing ceremony along with the ear piercing ceremony of his brother's children, the deceased did not agree to it, and on the contrary wanted the function to be as simple as possible without incurring much expenditure. The ear piercing ceremony was fixed for 01.06.1992.

4. On the fateful day of 29.05.1992, the deceased went to her parental house in the morning with her children and took her breakfast there and thereafter she came back to her own house leaving behind her child in her parental house. At about 9.10 a.m., when the baby started crying, the younger sister of the deceased, Chitra (PW-3) took the child and went to the house of the appellant and she left the child there after informing about the same to the deceased. At about 9.25 a.m., the brother of the deceased, Ravi Kumar (PW-1) and also the sisters (PW-3 and PW-4) of the deceased heard the screams of the deceased. On hearing the said screams they immediately went to the house of the appellant and found the appellant jumping and coming out from the bathroom without any clothes on him. The appellant having suffered burn injuries on his body requested PW-1 to call for an auto rickshaw. PW-1 took the baby and handed him over to PW-3 and requested their neighbor Narayanan (PW-

5. Immediately after the appellant and PW-6 left for the hospital, PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 as well as PW-5, came inside the house of the appellant and on realising the screams of the deceased to be emanating from the bathroom, found the deceased to be burning inside the bathroom. As the bathroom door was bolted from inside and could not be opened, they broke open the door with a crow bar. They immediately covered the deceased with gunny bags and put off the fire. The deceased was stated to be conscious when she was lifted from the bathroom. When PW-1 asked the deceased as to what had happened, she told that the appellant had beaten her and had, after pouring kerosene oil set her on fire. They brought her to the hall and there she died. A fresh injury was also noticed on the forehead of the deceased just above her left eye on the face and her body was completely burnt.

7. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. During the trial, a number of prosecution witnesses were examined. The defence, however, did not produce any witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 07.10.1994 acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under Section 302 IPC against him.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court 5 entertained the said appeal and heard the counsel appearing for the parties. On conclusion of the arguments the High Court passed a judgment and order by reversing and setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The said order of conviction passed by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

19.In light of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence available before us in detail. Admittedly, the marital life of the deceased with the appellant was not smooth and the 13 relationship between the couple was strained and not cordial. The four prosecution witnesses, viz. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 have clearly stated in their testimonies before the trial Court that the appellant did not allow the deceased to spend her money and used to suspect her fidelity. These witnesses have also stated that quarrels between the couple was a frequent phenomenon and that on one occasion about two months prior to the occurrence, the deceased had come back to her maternal house apprehending danger to her life from the appellant. It was only on the persuasion of her parents that the deceased returned to her matrimonial house. It was also brought to light by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that even 15 days prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the couple with reference to the ear piercing ceremony of their children. The appellant wanted to spend lavishly for that ceremony and wanted it to be conducted along with his brother's children, which the deceased objected to as she wanted it to be a simple affair involving minimal expenditure.

12. Before dwelling into the evidence on record and before addressing the rival contentions made by the parties, we would like to reiterate the well established legal position with regard to the scope of interference with an order of acquittal. It is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial Court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial Court which recorded the order of acquittal.

(emphasis underlined)

29. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities within 15 days from today failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.