The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences of a husband and his mother for the death of a woman who suffered 100% burns. The court found it implausible that the deceased could have poured 9 liters of kerosene on herself and sustained fatal burns without the family noticing. The judgment emphasized the circumstantial evidence pointing to the duo’s involvement.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences given to a husband and mother-in-law for the murder of the wife, stating that it is implausible for the deceased to have poured nearly 9 liters of kerosene on herself and suffered 100% burns without the family being aware, especially since they were present in the same house.
The Court dismissed the appeals from the husband and mother-in-law, reaffirming their conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC based on circumstantial evidence.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked,
“It is equally difficult to believe that the deceased poured almost 9 litres of kerosene on herself, put herself on fire and kept on burning till her body suffered 100% burns, without the appellants getting a whisper about the same despite being present in the same house. If it was indeed a case of self-immolation, the appellants must have done something to save her and her body would not have suffered 100% burns. This fact assumes greater gravity when it is seen that the room was not bolted from inside and was open for access.”
Advocate Sachin Patil represented the appellants, while Advocate on Record Sudarshan Singh Rawat appeared for the respondent. The deceased was found dead with 100% burn injuries at her matrimonial home. An FIR filed by her brother alleged that her in-laws murdered her after subjecting her to harassment and cruelty.
The Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld these convictions, leading the appellants to file the current appeal.
Although the appellants argued that the deceased’s death was a suicide rather than a homicide, the Supreme Court observed that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident, making it unlikely she would take such a “drastic step of suicide with a womb in her stomach.”
The Court noted,
“Thus, the conduct of the appellants, previous to and at the time of the incident, pointed in an incriminating direction. Furthermore, as per the testimonies of PWs, no smell of kerosene could be detected at the place of occurrence or in the body of the deceased which is not consistent with the allegation of self-immolation using an enormous quantity of kerosene.”
The Bench highlighted that the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries, and the appellants’ claim of self-immolation lacked credibility. The presence of two kerosene cans and the appellants’ failure to provide immediate medical assistance were also seen as incriminating factors.
Read Also: Bombay HC: Filing False Cases Against Husband Constitutes Cruelty by Wife
Consequently, the Court stated,
“In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court and High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record. We are unable to find any infirmity in the findings of the courts below and the impugned order is sustainable in the eyes of law. In the absence of a finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of the impugned findings, consistent views taken by two courts cannot be disturbed on mere conjectures or surmises.”
Following this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The appellants represented by Advocates Sachin Patil, Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, and Sachin Singh, with Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Anagha S. Desai.
The respondent represented by AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat, along with Advocates Saakshi Singh Rawat and Rachna Gandhi.