I wish the media would be more specific. He raped his wife who later died. In other words he raped her to death right? I mean it's not the same thing but given no further clarification, that's my interpretation.
the post-mortem report, which stated "the cause of death was peritonitis and rectal perforation" - simply put, severe injuries to her abdomen and rectum.
I'm kinda baffled by the ruling being about the rape then. If it's legal there it didn't need to even be stated. Instead it should be about the murder of his wife. I wonder what their laws around manslaughter are like. I'm sure the judge would call it an accident (because they're awful) but it's still an action that directly led to her death and that seems like something that should be punished.