2.The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as hereunder:-P.W.1, the de facto complainant, is the father of the deceased Theerthakarai; P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased.The marriage between the deceased and A-1 was solemnized during the month of February 2010 and they were blessed with a male child.The habit of A-1 consuming alcohol led to matrimonial disputes between the spouses and on the fateful day, i.e., on 08.06.2013 at about midnight 01:00 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by pouring 3/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 kerosene over her body and setting herself on flames.She was taken to the Government Hospital, Madurai , for treatment, where she succumbed to the burn injuries after five days of the occurrence.On information, the law enforcing agency, initially registered a case on the basis of the statement of the deceased Theerthakarai.However, after the demise of Theerthakarai, a written complaint, Ex.P-1, was lodged by P.W.1 with P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station.On receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered by P.W.13 by preparing printed F.I.R., Ex.Since the death had happened within seven years of the marriage, inquest was conducted by P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer.Printed F.I.R. was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate and also to the higher officials, whereinafter P.W.15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation.Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, who went 4/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P-12 and drew the rough sketch.The accused/respondents 1 & 2 herein, who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 were charged and tried before the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District in S.C.No.23 of 2014 for the offences under Section 306 and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, and the trial Court found that the prosecution having not proved the case as against the accused/respondents 1 & 2 beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused/respondents 1 & 2 herein.The petitioner/P.W.1 aggrieved by the said order of acquittal has preferred the present appeal.2/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.He also examined the doctors and recorded their statements.The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and P.W.9, the doctor, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased.After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report against the accused/respondents for the offences u/s 306 and 498-A IPC.The accused/respondents herein were furnished with the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial after framing charges under Sections 306 and 498(A) of I.P.C. When questioned, the accused/respondents herein pleaded not guilty.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.O. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false.Neither any oral nor any 5/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 documentary evidence was marked on the side of the defence.The trial Court, after hearing either side and after considering the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused aggrieved by which, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 has filed the present appeal.It is the further submission of the learned counsel that on the fateful day, the deceased came to her parental house and informed P.W.s 1 and 2 and she is being harassed by the accused and that she intends to end her life and P.W.s 1 and 2 pacified her and sent her to her matrimonial home.In this connection it may be pointed out that the powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379 (sic 378) CrPC are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the trial court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness.17/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015The facts as to the relationship of the parties, viz., A-1, A-2, the deceased, P.W.s 1, 2 and 3 are not in dispute.The deceased and A-1 were also blessed with one male child, which is also not in dispute.However, as P.W.s 1 to 3 are related to the deceased, this Court is entrusted with the task of stifling through their evidence to find out whether their evidence is free from embellishments and interpolations and whether their evidence is trustworthy to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.10.1.There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence.However, P.W.s 1 to 3 have been projected by the prosecution to speak about the matrimonial discord between the deceased and A-1 and also the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased.P.W.s 5, 6, 7 and 8, have turned hostile and, therefore, their evidence in no way furthers the prosecution case.P.W.1 has further deposed that A-1 is residing in the next street and that A-1 frequently consumed alcohol, which led to frequent matrimonial disputes between the spouses.The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that P.W.s 1 and 2 used to pacify the deceased and send her to her matrimonial house.P.W.1 has further deposed that the deceased came to their house alone and the child was not with her.P.W.1 had further deposed that they pacified her and sent her to her matrimonial home and after some time, they came to know that their daughter committed suicide by pouring kerosene over her body.It is to be borne in mind that initially on receipt of information, the law enforcing agency had recorded the statement of the 19/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 deceased at the hospital on the day of occurrence.However, subsequently, when her condition worsened, dying declaration, Ex.P.10, was recorded by the Magistrate in the presence of P.W.s 1 and 2, which was attested by them.It is only subsequent to the dying declaration, the complaint, Ex.P-1 has been lodged by P.W.1 based on which the criminal machinery was set in motion.10.5. P.W.1 has deposed that his daughter had affixed her thumb impression in the complaint, Ex.P-1 as well as the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.However, the said deposition of P.W.1 was contradicted by the doctors, P.W.s 9 and 10, who have categorically deposed that since the victim had suffered more than 75% burn injuries, they were not able to affix her thumb impression in the complaint as well as in the dying declaration and, therefore, her left toe impression was only obtained in the above documents.It is to be pointed out at this juncture, at the risk of repetition, that subsequent to the dying declaration, Ex.P-10, given by the deceased, the complaint was given by P.W.1, in which he has pointed a 20/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 finger on the accused as the persons responsible for the deceased committing suicide.But the said complaint of P.W.1 stands nullified by the dying declaration recorded from the deceased, in which the deceased has not made any allegations as against the accused.The deceased, nowhere in the dying declaration, has stated that she was instigated by the accused to commit suicide.Except for a statement that A-1 prevented the deceased from frequenting to her parental house, there is no allegation made as against the accused.One other crucial admission of P.W.1, which enures to the benefit of the accused is that in cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that while the deceased was in the hospital, a panchayat was convened where the accused agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of his son and also settle the properties in his favour.It is to be remembered at this stage that the deceased, who was none other than the daughter of P.W.s 1 and 2, was fighting for her life and no prudent and affectionate parent would hold a panchayat to get settlement of properties.The evidence of the above official witnesses categorically reveal that there was no harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused, but however, there were matrimonial disputes between the spouses.It is to be pointed out that the outcome of marriage is matrimonial dispute, which lingers in every family and mere matrimonial dispute between the spouses alone cannot be exaggerated and stated to be a harassment meted out by one spouse on the other.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the findings recorded by the Sessions Court to acquit the respondents herein and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of acquittal recorded in S.C.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.02.03.2020 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No sts To1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar DistrictThe Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.25/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Relevant sections: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code