Strained marriage, alcohol use not enough to prove guilt: Madras High Court acquits man of wife’s murder

The Madras High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his wife.

A Bench comprising of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal ruled that a strained marriage and accused's alcohol use alone will not be enough to hold an accused person guilty in the absence of solid proof of guilt.

The Court examined the evidence presented at trial and identified several gaps in the prosecution’s case.

“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 in its judgment of March 10.

The case originated from an incident in November 2017 when the accused had allegedly strangled his wife with a towel and struck her with a kitchen tool, resulting in her death due to asphyxia.

The Court noted that the accused and the deceased reportedly had strained relationship, partly due to the accused’s alcohol use and inability to work, which led to frequent quarrels between them.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.

However, the High Court found that there was no direct witness placing the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident.

The Court highlighted the omission by the prosecution in failing to examine the deceased’s son, who was reportedly present at the scene and was aware of the events.

“In the case on hand, the chain of circumstances got snapped when the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness to substantiate the last seen theory and committed the fatal mistake of not examining KP (son), who is one of the most important witness, who could have spoken about the incident. This serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer has to be necessarily condemned by this Court,” the Court said.

The High Court also examined the requirements for proving a case based solely on circumstantial evidence.

It emphasised that in such cases, the prosecution must present a complete chain of events that rules out any other possible explanation. If the evidence is incomplete or could be interpreted in more than one way, the court must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

“In a case involving circumstantial evidence, when two views are possible, the accused will also be entitled for benefit of doubt on the one which is favourable to him,” explained the Court.

The Court noted that the prosecution did not call some important witnesses, including the minor son, who could have confirmed whether the accused was at the scene during the incident.

The absence of such testimony broke the chain of circumstantial evidence and made it impossible to conclusively link the accused to the death, the Bench held.

Considering these lapses, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, it set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Advocate G Karuppasamypandiyan appeared for the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor A Thiruvadi Kumar represented the Police.

[Read Order]