P.D.DINAKARAN,J.I  Prologue Seldom, criminal trials bring before us persons, who are accused of acts of quivering barbarity.One such act is the offence of rape, which was more in tune with tribal society, and is in existence even now and calls for stringent punishment.This case is even more dreadful as the offence of rape was committed by the accused on his own sister-in-law, and the situation became much more worse, as the sister-in-law of the accused as well as her tiny tot, a thirteen months old girl baby were charred.II  ChargeIII  The case of the prosecutionThe prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence, runs thus:3.1. P.W.1, Chandrabose is the brother of the deceased.He deposed that the deceased was married to one Thiruselvam and she was living with her in-laws and brother-in-law as a joint family; after one year, the deceased gave birth to a female child; she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; two months prior to the date of occurrence, she called him over phone and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; she was repeatedly asking for the money since he could not arrange it immediately; on the date of occurrence, at about 2 pm, she called him over phone and enquired about him and asked him to bring money immediately; since she disconnected the phone immediately, he tried to contact her, but he could not; at once, he tried his elder brother and spoke to his sister-in-law P.W.3; he informed P.W.3 about the call by the deceased and asked P.W.3 to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him; at about 3.30 pm, his elder brother called him and informed that the deceased and her baby died due to burn injuries; he went to Yercaud at about 7 pm; he went and lodged a complaint Ex.3.2. P.W.2, Selvi, Noon Meal Assistant, is a neighbour of the deceased.According to her, on the date of occurrence, she returned from the school at about 1.15 pm and was having lunch; around 1.30 pm, the accused called her and asked for little kerosene to clean the machine; since she was having lunch, she gave a 10 litres can containing 6/7 litres of kerosene; after ten minutes, the accused, who was standing at the back side of his house, called her; thinking that he would be returning the kerosene can, she went to his house; she was called inside the house where she noticed the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen; when she asked the accused, he informed her that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with conventional roti roller (for brevity, "poori kattai"), M.O.11 and hence, she fell unconscious and thereafter, he quenched his thirst by having intercourse with her; he wanted to create a scene as if the deceased committed suicide; then, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face; he laid down the child near her mother; he caught hold of her neck and threatened her not to reveal to anybody, otherwise he would do away with her; he asked her to make call to P.W.1 and to talk like the deceased; he dialled the number and asked her to put her saree pallu on the mouth piece of the receiver; as tutored by the accused, she spoke to P.W.1 like the deceased and enquired him; she stated that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, otherwise she would die; thereafter, she immediately disconnected the call; she was again threatened by the accused not to reveal the occurrence to anybody or otherwise, she would be done away in the same manner and her children would become orphans and asked her to leave the place; later, she left the place and returned to the house of the accused around 4pm, when she noticed the deceased and her child burnt and lying in the hall; she was shocked on seeing the deceased and the child burnt by the accused using the kerosene given by her; she was fearing that she may also be done to death in the same manner, she did not reveal anything about the occurrence to Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17; however, on 17.8.2003, when P.W.30 enquired, she informed everything; she also informed P.W.31 about the occurrence on 19.8.2003; she gave a statement, Ex.As per the deposition of Mariyayee, P.W.3, sister-in-law of the deceased, there was a dowry demand by the family members of the deceased; after the deceased gave birth to a female child, she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; three months thereafter, she came to her house and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; the deceased was sent stating that they would arrange money after sometime; 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to her house and informed about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her and asked her not to reveal the same to her brother; on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 pm, P.W.1 called from Mettupalayam and informed her that the deceased called him and her family members were torturing her to bring money and asked him to bring money within one hour, otherwise, she would die along with her child; P.W.1 asked her to go to the place of the deceased and to bring her; when she tried the telephone number of the deceased, she was informed that the deceased and her child were dead; immediately on arrival of her husband, she informed him, who, in turn informed P.W.1; P.W.1 informed his brother not to take any action till his arrival; P.W.1 arrived at about 7 pm and thereafter, a complaint was lodged on the file of Yercaud Police Station; two weeks after the date of occurrence, she came to know from the newspaper that the deceased had not committed suicide, but it was a murder; two months thereafter, when she was enquired, she had stated all the details, including the ill-behaviour of the accused with the deceased; at that time only, she informed about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to the members of the family; she was slapped by her husband for not telling the same earlier, who stated that he would have saved the deceased; that time, P.W.1 raised a doubt as to the voice of the deceased when she called on the date of occurrence.He deposed that he went to the house of the accused at about 1/1.15 pm and asked him to lay the pipeline, which the accused refused stating he had some other work.He then went to Block Development Office and on his return on the next day, he heard the death news of the deceased and her child.Jayaprakash, a building contractor, examined as P.W.5, deposed that on 15.8.2003, at about 2/2.10 pm, when he went along with his brother Dhanapal for ordering Jalli, he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house.3.6. P.W.6, Sathish, who was running Coffee Works at Yercaud, stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.10 pm, the accused came to his shop and asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods.Accordingly, he dropped the accused at Krishna Electricals.After purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, the accused asked him to drive fast.When he enquired as to the urgency, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.He was working at Krishna Electricals.He stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused, along with another person, came in a motor cycle between 1.15 and 2.30 pm and purchased three electrical goods for Rs.608/- on credit and left immediately.The carbon copy of the bill with regard to the electrical goods purchased by the accused is marked as Ex.Later he came to know that the accused had murdered his sister-in-law and her child.3.8. P.W.8, Vigneshwaran, was working as Supervisor in St. Annis Convent.On the date of occurrence, at about 9.30 am, both the accused and Thiruselvam came to work.At about 12.45 pm, he asked another Supervisor that he required some electrical goods and left the School.Later, the accused came around 2.45/3.00 pm with electrical goods.After some time, four people came in two wheeler and asked him to send the accused and Thiruselvam.P.W.9, Banumathi, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Department, Chennai deposed that as per the requisition made by the Court, Ex.P4, she examined M.Os.1 and 4 to 9 and it was detected that the said M.Os. contained Kerosene.The report of the Scientific Officer is Ex.P.W.10, Sivakumar, Scientific Officer issued a report Ex.P6, stating that M.O.10, Kerosene Pump Stove, was not in usable condition.As per Ex.P7, requisition sent by the Court, P.W.11, Kamalatchi Krishnamoorthy, Scientific Officer, examined M.O.15, brief, and detected semen in it as per Ex.P8, Chemical Report and sent the sample blood and salavai to Serological Department.P9 is the Serologist's Report stating that the sample sent was of human origin.P.W.12, Ravi, an LIC Agent, deposed that when he returned home on 15.8.2003, the wife of one Sekar asked him to inform about the death of the deceased and her child to Thiruselvam.As he does not know as to where Thiruselvam was working, he enquired P.W.6 and thereafter went to Annis Convent and brought Thiruselvam and the accused, around 3/3.30 pm.P.W.13 Selvam, a resident of North Street, Periyapudhur, deposed that he, along with one Palanisamy, was present at the time when the accused was giving confession statement to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police to the effect that he would hand over the poori kattai, brief and telephone note book to the police and the admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.As requested by the Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, in Ex.P13 is the computerised bill for the telephone No.222612 of Yercaud Telephone Exchange.P.W.16, Ettiyappan, Scientific Officer, has deposed that he inspected the scene of occurrence on 16.8.2003 at 7 am.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.P.W.17, Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of FIR, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and submitted his report Ex.He sent the body for post mortem through P.W.25, Head Constable.He also sent a report, Ex.P16 to the Judicial Magistrate stating that the death of the deceased and her child was not due to dowry harassment and for further action.The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.18, on hearing that the house of Krishnan caught fire, at about 2.15 pm, went along with one Duraisamy, Village Assistant to the place of occurrence.He peeped inside through the glass window, which seems to be broken due to the heat, and saw the room with full smoke.When he touched the front side door to go inside the house, it opened immediately since it was not latched inside.In the middle portion of the house, he saw two dead bodies in burnt condition and he smelt kerosene odour through out the house.He informed about the occurrence to his higher officials.In his presence, P.W.30, Deputy Superintendent of Police, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery mahazar and he had attested his signature in those documents.He also issued Ex.P21 Nativity Certificate with regard to the deceased family.P.W.19, Dr.Ravi Shankar, attached to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem deposed that he examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and found no fracture.Vallinayagam, attached to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, examined the accused, found a lacerated injury on the left collar bone 0.5 cm and issued Ex.P25, wound certificate.In his evidence, he deposed that the said injury might be caused due to finger nail scratch.As per requisition Ex.P.W.21, Magisterial Clerk, speaks about the receipt of material objects and sending the same for chemical analysis.P27 is the covering letter of the Court and Ex.P28 is the chemical analysis report.As per the requisition Ex.P30 made by P.W.31 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, P.W.23, Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exs.P31 to P43 are the said statements.The Doctor, P.W.24, on receipt of requisitions, Exs.P44 and P45, by P.W.17 for post mortem of the bodies of the deceased and her child, conducted post mortem and issued certificates Exs.P46 and P47 opining that the deceased appears to have died of shock following head injury and shock following burns and her child appears to have died of burns shock.P.W.25, Head Constable, deposed that he took the bodies for post mortem to Government Hospital, Yercaud and entrusted the bodies to their relatives after autopsy.As directed by P.W.31, P.W.26, Photographer, took photos at the scene of occurrence.P48 series are photos and Ex.P49 series are their negatives.P.W.27, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of information, went to the place of occurrence at 3 pm.P57 is Ex.P.W.30, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that on receipt of Ex.P50, F.I.R, he went to the place of occurrence, along with Scientific Officer, P.W.16 and obtained his opinion.He prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P18 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.He caused photographs of the dead bodies, Ex.P55 series, through P.W.26, photographer.He recovered M.Os.1, 4 to 10 under Mahazar, Ex.P19, in the presence of P.W.18, Village Administrative Officer and his menial.He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After getting opinion from the doctors who conducted autopsy, he altered the charges under Section 302 and 376, IPC and sent the altered FIR, Ex.P60, to the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.31, the Superintendent of Police, Salem, in his evidence, narrated the investigation undertook by him.According to him, he went to the scene of occurrence and examined P.Ws.2 and 4 and the relatives of the deceased orally.He recorded the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of Sellam and Palanisamy in writing and through P.W.29, Police Videographer.On 21.8.2003, at 7.00 a.m. he recovered the wood used for preparing rotis along with poori kattai, M.O.11, full hand white colour shirt, pant and brief on being produced by the accused from kitchen in the presence of witnesses.He also seized indane gas cylinder, regulator, gas tube and double door in the presence of Selvam and Palanisamy.He remanded the accused to police custody.On 22.8.2003, he examined Sukumar, Inspector and recorded his statement.On 23.8.2003, he examined P.W.3 and recorded her statement.On 24.8.2003, he examined P.Ws.6,7, 8 and 12 and others and recorded their statements.On 25.8.2003, he examined the prisoners viz., Krishnan @ Venkatachalam, Sellammal and Thiruselvam, who are father, mother and brother of the accused respectively, and recorded their confession statements.He examined P.W.18 and got residential proof of the deceased family.He examined father, mother and brother of P.W.3 Selvi and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement through video.On 1.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.On 2.9.2003, he examined P.W.22, Judicial Magistrate and recorded his statement.On 10.9.2003, he examined P.W.20, Dr.Vallinayagam and recorded his statement.He sent M.O.15 brief to the Court for chemical examination through Ex.P.61 requisition.Thereafter, he sent Ex.P30 requisition for recording statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.9.2003, he sent the material objects to the Court for subjecting the same to chemical analysis.On 16.10.2003, he examined post-mortem doctors and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.1, Thangavel, brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is in one voice qua the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to quench the thirst of lust is concerned.In fact, the deceased herself had shared her worries about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her to P.W.3, during her last visit to the residence of P.W.3, and also requested P.W.3 not to inform to her brother, viz. husband of P.W.3, fearing future consequences.To quench the thirst of lust, the accused had chosen the time when the deceased was alone at the residence, left the school as spoken to by P.W.8, viz., the accused was absent from the School from 12.45 pm to 2.45/3 pm.Apart from proving his absence in the School, the prosecution has also substantiated the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence through the evidence of P.W.4, Councillor of Yercaud Town Panchayat who saw the accused in his house between 1 and 1.15 pm.The next question that arises is whether the prosecution has proved or not the links between the next chain of circumstances, viz. fisting the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laying her near the deceased and thereafter, murdering them and threatening P.W.2 with dire consequences and making her to speak to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide, to substantiate the offence under Section 302, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?According to P.W.2, the accused asked her some kerosene to clean the machine.Since P.W.2 was having lunch, she has given 10 litres capacity can containing around 6/7 litres of kerosene to the accused.As soon as P.W.2 entered the house, she found the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen.When she enquired the accused, he stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched the thirst of lust by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC and since he wanted to simulate the occurrence as if the deceased committed suicide, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face and laid her near her mother.Thereafter, P.W.2, made call to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased, being threatened by the accused that he would do away with her in the same manner like the deceased if she tells to anybody about the occurrence, and later left the scene of occurrence.Around 4 pm, when she came to know that the deceased and her child were burnt, she went to the house of the deceased and witnessed the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the kitchen.Further, P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted post mortem had deposed that the back side of the body, crown of the head and the soles were not burnt and therefore, there is no possibility of committing suicide.What is left to be decided is whether the prosecution has proved the link between the chain of circumstances with regard to the screening of the offence by pouring kerosene on the deceased and her child.The accused, in his extra judicial confession made to P.W.2, had stated that he had committed the offence under Section 376, IPC and to make it as a suicide, he asked P.W.2 to give kerosene and thereafter, he poured the kerosene on the unconscious deceased and her child and set them on fire and screened the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement would make it clear that the accused had the intention to screen the offence under Section 376, IPC.That apart, as per Ex.P46, post mortem certificate, the symptoms for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC could not be traced due to the extensive second degree burns over the front on all the parts of the body of the deceased.P57 is the video cassette and Ex.While proceeding with the investigation, on 18.08.2003, after getting the opinion of the Doctor by preparing medico legal questionnaire and recording the statements of witnesses, he altered the provisions of offence as the ones under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.and sent the altered report Ex.P-60 to the Judicial Magistrate.On 19.08.2003, he handed over the investigation to PW-31 the Superintendent of Police, Salem, and was assisting him in further investigating the matter.On 23.08.2003 at 7 A.M., PW-30 arrested the parents of the accused.xxviii) PW-31 is the Chief Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police, who after taking over the investigation from PW-30, proceeded further.On 19.08.2003, he went to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW-2 and that of other witnesses.The absconding accused was produced before him by the Inspector of Police on 20.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M. He sent him to the Hospital for obtaining medical opinion.After complying with the legal formalities, he recorded the statement of the accused.He produced the accused with a report before the D.R.O., Salem, to record his statement in writing and through video.The Station House Officers, amongst various other assignments, also entrusted with the job of investigation of crimes.Unless an officer is hand and foot assigned for conducting investigation of a case in a full-fledged manner and pursuing the same in a court of law, it would be impossible to occlude the resultant failures in the administration of criminal justice, leading to wrong acquittals.In such circumstances, suggestion is made to the Government to establish a separate "Crime Investigation Wing" exclusively for investigation, prosecution and to take necessary follow-up action, as found in the developed countries in order to attain the avowed objectives of the criminal justice and administration system.Registry is directed to communicate copy of this Judgement to the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The Chief Secretary to Govt., Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.The above-said ghastly incident was said to have taken place on 15.8.2003 within the jurisdiction of Yercaud Police Station.This horrifying issue, stimulated the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, P.W.31 to undertake investigation by himself and to register an FIR in Crime No.350 of 2003, initially for an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, which was subsequently altered, pursuant to which the appellant was tried and thereafter, convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, on year rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence of rape on the deceased mother under Section 376, IPC; (ii) life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having murdered the deceased mother and 13 months old girl baby under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC; (iii) two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment for having poured kerosene on the mother and 13 months old baby and set them on fire in order to screen the offence under Section 302 read with 201 (2 counts), IPC; and (iv) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having caused criminal intimidation to P.W.2 under Section 506(2), IPC.As per requisition Ex.P23 made by P.W.31, P.W.20, Dr.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child, surrounded by lot of people.Around 8 pm, P.W.1 gave a written complaint, Ex.P1 and registered the FIR, Ex.P50, in Crime No.350 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC.F.I.R. was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17, as well as to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.30, for further action, since the occurrence took place within two years from the date of marriage of the deceased.As per Ex.P51, requisition made by P.W.31, P.W.28, District Revenue Officer, examined the accused and recorded Ex.P52 confession statement in video through P.W.29 Police Videographer.P57 is the video cassette.The Videographer, who was examined as P.W.29, deposed that on instructions from P.W.31, he took video at the time of enquiry and took photo of the accused, before recording the video.P55 is the photo of the accused.Print of Ex.He also examined P.W.7 Shanmugam in respect of the electrical goods sold to the accused and seized the credit bill and recorded his statement.After completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 506(i), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC and also filed a separate charge sheet against Thiruselvam, accused, Krishnan @ Venkatachalam and Selvam under Section 498(A)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial.On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials for which the accused denied any complicity in the offence committed and claimed innocence.On the side of defence, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D11 were filed.3.35. D.W.2, sister of the accused, deposed that the deceased called her on 13.3.2008 and stated that when she went to her brother's house for asking Rs.10,000/-, her brother and her sister-in-law refused to give money and sent her out of their house forcibly.She further stated that at about 9 am on the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and stated that she does not like to live due to the distress caused by the scolding of her brother and sister-in-law.3.35. D.W.3, Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, deposed that the accused came to the bank on 20.8.2003, the accused came to the Bank between 10 am to 2pm and redeemed the jewels pledged in the Bank.3.36. D.W.4, who was working as the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL, deposed that no outgoing STD call was made from telephone No.222032 in August, 2003, as per the magnetic tape maintained by the Exchange for registering all the STD outgoing.The Court examined one Francis as C.W.1, who deposed that on hearing noise from the house of the deceased, he saw the smoke emanating from the house of the deceased.He went to the house of the deceased and saw the window glass broken due to the heat and since some people were standing in front of the house, he climbed up the roof of the house and removed the tiles in order to enter into the house and saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, upon appreciation of the evidence and hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.Hence, the above appeal.V  Contentions of the appellantMr.K.V.Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the order of conviction and sentence as follows:(b) The case of the prosecution rests upon the complaint Ex.In the said complaint, P.W.1 had not uttered anything about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased.(d) Further, P.Ws.4 to 8, who spoke about the movement of the accused on the date of occurrence, are not reliable witnesses, as they were examined after a period of 10/15 days.(e) The carbon particles found deposited more in the kitchen, than in the hall, would prove that the deceased had committed suicide along with her child, as it is supported with the fact that the tiles in the kitchen alone were removed and also by the evidence of P.W.1 who had stated that the deceased called him and stated that she would commit suicide if he did not reach her place within one hour with money.Therefore, there is a possibility that the people who entered the house, after gaining the entry, would have removed the body to the hall, and accordingly, the deceased had committed suicide only and the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(f) From the statement of D.W.2, sister of the accused, that two days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and informed that her brother refused to give money and scolded her and on the morning of the date of occurrence, she informed that she was very much dejected and she did not want to live, it can be clearly elucidated that the deceased had only committed suicide.(g) Alternatively, since the death of the deceased and her child was due to burn injuries and the accused has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and her child, it can be assumed that the accused wanted only to screen the offence.Therefore, the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(h) Finally, the offence under Sections 376, 302 (2 counts) and 302 read with 201, IPC has not been proved with medical evidence and beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence have to be set aside.Therefore, the same would not make her evidence unreliable, as she is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.P1 itself.Further, since he received a call at about 2.00 pm on the date of occurrence from P.W.2, who impersonated as the deceased, P.W.1 had the suspicion that she would have committed suicide due to dowry harassment.After coming to know about the conduct of the accused, P.W.1 stated the same to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be stated as untrustworthy.(c) P.W.3 was of the opinion that the death of the deceased and her child was due to dowry harassment and she had no doubt that it was homicide.On seeing the article in the newspaper that the death was homicide, she recalled about the statement made by the deceased with regard to the conduct of the accused 15 days prior to the date of the occurrence.The same, however, would not render the evidence of P.W.3 undependable on the ground that it was given after two months.(d) P.Ws.4 to 8 speak about the movement of the accused just prior to the occurrence and immediately after the occurrence and at the place of the occurrence.The delay in obtaining their evidence was due to the fact that the case was initially registered for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, IPC and only later, it was registered for the offence under Sections 376, 302, 302 read with 201, IPC.Moreover, they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence.Further, the Investigation Officer was not cross examined with respect to the delay in examining those witnesses.Therefore, the delay in examining P.Ws.4 to 8 would not make their evidence unbelievable.(e) As per the evidence of C.W.1, who removed the tiles of the house of the deceased, the bodies of the deceased and her child were found in the hall only.This is strengthened with the statement of P.W.2, who witnessed the bodies in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall, after they were burnt.Even though the carbon particles were found deposited in the kitchen, the same would not change the nature of offence, because, P.W.16, Scientific Officer and P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted autopsy, were of the opinion that it was not suicide since the hair in the crown and back of the head, back side of the body and soles were not burnt.(f) If the statement of D.W.2 is true that the deceased informed her that she was very much depressed on the morning of 15.8.2003, viz. date of occurrence and therefore, she did not want to live, naturally D.W.2 should have informed the same to her brother and parents.Failure to do the same would make it clear that D.W.2 would have also joined along with her brother in demanding money and therefore, the contention that the deceased had committed suicide has to be rejected.(g) P.W.2 had deposed about the extra judicial confession made by the accused that he had an eye over the accused and since the deceased refused to heed his wish, he hit the deceased on her head and when the deceased fell unconscious, the accused committed the offence under Section 376, IPC.P.W.2 also witnessed the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.This would prove the motive of the accused and clearly establishes the offence under Section 302, IPC.We have also perused the entire materials on record.Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer the law laid down and the tests to be adopted for placing reliance on the extra judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence.The prosecution mainly depends on the extra judicial confession of the accused made to by P.W.2, neighbour and P.W.28, District Revenue Officer.While P.Ws.1 to 3 speak about the motive, P.Ws.4 and 5 speak about the movement of the accused near the scene of occurrence and P.Ws.6 to 8 speak about the absence of the accused in the school where he was working, at the relevant time.The chain and the links, which constitute the circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused, are as under:(i) the accused had an ill-intention to commit rape on the deceased;(ii) he had chosen the time when the deceased was alone in the residence and left the school and came to the residence;(iii) he hit the deceased with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when the deceased fell unconscious, he committed the offence under Section 376, IPC;(iv) he fisted the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laid her near the deceased;(v) he threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences and made her to speak to P.W.1, impersonating the deceased, in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide;(viii) his leaving the scene of occurrence by opening the gate of his house, around 2/2.10 pm, was witnessed by P.W.5 and his brother;(ix) at about 2.10 pm, after purchasing electrical goods, he had stated to P.W.6 that he had committed a small mistake and would tell the same later and thereafter, went to Sister Convent;P.W.2 spoke to P.W.1, as tutored by the accused, that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, or otherwise she would commit suicide.Since the accused threatened her, fearing danger to her life, P.W.2 would not have informed P.W.17 on the earlier day.Further, in his evidence, P.W.1 had stated that the deceased called him and asked him to come with money within one hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.Immediately, P.W.1 called his brother's residence and spoke to his sister-in-law, P.W.3 about the telecon by the deceased and asked her to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him.P.W.3 also, in her evidence, stated that P.W.1 called her and stated about the telecon of the deceased.In the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.2, he had stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched his thirst by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement is corroborated by the wound certificate Ex.P25 certifying that there was a simple injury and opining that it might be due to a finger nail scratch.The possibility that finger nail mark on the left clavicular region would have been caused on the accused by the deceased only when the deceased tried to resist the accused from committing the offence under Section 376, IPC cannot be ruled out.Substantiating the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 4, P.W.5, building contractor, deposed that he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house around 2/2.10 pm.Thereafter, the accused was found at the shop of P.W.7, who deposed that the accused came along with P.W.6 to purchase electrical goods, which is strengthened with the copy of the bill, Ex.P.W.6 deposed that the accused, after purchasing electrical goods from the shop of P.W.7, stated that he committed a small mistake.If the accused left the School at 12.45 pm only to purchase electrical goods, he would have straight away gone to the shop of P.W.7 and returned to the School, immediately after his purchase and in which event, P.Ws.4 and 5 would not have seen the accused at the place of occurrence at about 1/1.15 pm and 2/2.10 pm respectively, nor P.W.6 would have taken him to the shop of P.W.7, to whom the accused had stated that he committed a small mistake.The prosecution has, therefore, rightly proved the links between the chain of circumstances that the accused had ill intention towards the deceased and chosen the convenient time for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC and accordingly, left the School at 12.45 pm, went to the residence and since the deceased did not heed to his desire, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he committed the offence, left the house by opening the gate, which was seen by P.W.5 and went to the shop of P.W.7 along with P.W.6 and thereafter, returned to the School.From the above, it can be elucidated that the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and her child, who were unconscious and set them on fire.Accordingly, the accused had committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.12.3. P.W.2 is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen, when she was called by the accused and thereafter, found the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The said portion of her evidence derives strength from the evidence of C.W.1 who deposed that he removed the tiles of the house of the deceased and thereafter, when he entered the house after the public gained entry, he saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall only.Therefore, the contention that the deceased had only committed suicide and thereafter, the people who entered inside the house would have brought the bodies to the hall, cannot be sustained, as the stove, gas cylinder and other things in the kitchen were found intact.Moreover, the doors of the house were found to be unlocked.Thus, after committing the offence under Section 376, IPC the accused would have brought the deceased and her child to the hall and would have poured kerosene and set them on fire.Hence, the contention that the carbon particles were found deposited more in the kitchen than in the hall also cannot be accepted, because, the house of the deceased was very small and therefore, there is possibility for the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen.However, the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen would not change the nature of offence.That apart, as per the statement of P.W.6, at about 2.10 pm on the date of occurrence, the accused, who came to his shop, asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods and after purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, since the accused asked him to drive fast, he enquired as to the urgency, and at that time, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.The above statement supports the evidence of P.W.2 to conclude that the accused has committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.As per Ex.P46, Post Mortem Certificate, extensive second degree burns were found over the front on all the parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles.Assuming the deceased had committed suicide, naturally she would have poured kerosene on her head which would have spread on all over her body and on setting fire, all parts of the body would have got burnt.But, as per the post mortem certificate, back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles were not burnt.Further, after setting fire on her and on her child, she would have moved here and there and raised alarm, but would not have laid down as if she wanted to sleep.Moreover, if the deceased had committed suicide, after pouring kerosene, she would have thrown the can containing kerosene in the house itself, but not outside the house.This would establish that the deceased had not committed suicide and she was done to death.Even though an argument was raised on behalf of the appellant that as per the evidence of D.W.2, the deceased would have only committed suicide, we are unable to appreciate the same, since D.W.2, who is the sister of the accused, on being informed by the deceased about her frustration to live due to the scolding of her brother and refusal to give money, is normally expected to inform the same to her brother, husband of the deceased and tried to convince her.But, the action of D.W.2 in not informing the same to her brother creates a doubt as to the veracity of her evidence.Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.We have already rendered our finding as to the trustworthiness of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and as to the discharge of burden by the prosecution to prove the links between the chain of circumstances.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion, that at the time of occurrence, the accused had the knowledge that he had committed the main offence and caused disappearance of evidence with regard to the main offence, and had the intention to screen the offence, by burning the body of the deceased and her child and consequently, the ingredients with respect to the screening of offence had been satisfied.Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 read with 201, IPC has also been made out.Thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged their onus of proving the link between the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused qua the screening of offence is concerned.VIII  FindingIn view of the above discussion, our appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of the established circumstances cumulatively lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.IX  EncomiumX - UPSHOT This appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.kplNote to Registry:The deceased was made unconscious by him with a severe blow on her head with a dough-roller (poorikattai) so that he could deflower her without any fray or resistance.The little drops of humanness which conjointly make humanity a cherished desire of mankind had seemingly dried up, when he gave a deadly punch on the tender face of his niece, a baby of just 13 months old, to make her inert so as to comfortably burn her along with her mother, who was already made unconscious by his brutal acts.Insolently, he invited a neighbour PW-2, showed her as to what he has committed, intimidated and threatened her not to divulge his acts and by squeezing her neck, forced her, who was already under the grip of fear, to talk to the relatives of the first deceased over phone as if the deceased herself was talking in order to make them believe that the first deceased was alive at that time.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.came to be framed.When the accused was initially questioned, he pleaded innocence and therefore, trial of the case was taken up.The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 31, marked Exs.On the side of the defence, four witnesses were examined as DWs-1 to 4 and Exs.D1 to D11 were marked.i) PW-1 is the brother of D-1 and he speaks about the dowry demand and the phone call received by him from her sister's residence at 2 P.M. on the fateful day.Since the phone call was cut off on the side of his sister, he immediately tried to contact her but in vain and therefore, he contacted his brother over phone in that regard.By 3.30 P.M., he received a telephonic message from his brother to the effect that their sister/D1 and her child/D2 were no more.He started immediately, reached the scene house at 7 P.M. and thereafter lodged a written complaint Ex.P1 with the police and Ex.P2 is the Telephone Bill.ii) PW-2 is a neighbour of the accused.According to her, on 15.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M., the accused asked for kerosene to clean a machine and, as she was having food at that time, she gave him the Can containing about 6 to 7 litres of kerosene.When PW-2 came out of her residence, the accused signalled her to come to his residence and thinking that he called her to return back the kerosene Can, she went there and at the kitchen room found both the deceased lying inert on the floor.By threatening PW-2 that she would also be finished off if she does not act on his words, the accused asked her to talk over phone to the brother of D1 posing herself as D1 and state that unless they bring money within an hour, herself and D2 would not be seen alive.Accordingly, after stating so, she immediately cut the line even without answering the reply from the other end.It is her specific evidence that she was under the grip of panic and fear and was not able to do her works on that day.Her evidence is that earlier, D-1 told her about the misbehaviour of the accused and requested her not to reveal the same to his brother.According to PW-3, she did not inform the said fact immediately after the occurrence as they came to know that it was a case of murder only later on.iv) PW-4 deposed that he saw the accused at his residence at about 1.15 p.m. and called him to attend a plumbing job, for which, he declined stating that he had some other work.He speaks to the presence of the accused at the vicinity of the occurrence place at the relevant point of time.v) PW-5, a building contractor, who knows the accused as a plumber, while going in a motorcycle along with his brother, saw the accused coming out of his residence/scene place between 2 and 2.10 p.m.vi) PW-6 states that at about 2.10 pm., the accused came to his shop and requested him to drop him at the electrical shop and his specific statement is that while travelling so, the accused asked him to drive fast and when questioned as to what happened, he replied that he had committed a mistake.PW-6 further states that only after knowing about the incident, he could understand the meaning of what has been stated by the accused as mistake.His evidence is that he saw the accused unusually disturbed and in a state of hurry.Copy of the counterfoil of bill for the purchase of electrical goods by the accused is marked as Ex.viii) PW-8 was working as a Supervisor at St.Anne's Convent, where the accused and his brother viz., the husband of D1, were engaged for electrical works.His evidence is that on 15.08.2003, the accused left the working place by 12.45 P.M. to purchase some electrical goods, however, he returned back only by 3 P.M.ix) PW-9 is the Scientific Officer, who, on receipt of Ex.P4, letter sent by the Court along with materials recovered at the scene of occurrence viz., empty cylinder, plastic can, piece of burnt mat with stain, wire bag , stove etc., conducted chemical examination and the report submitted in that regard is Ex.PW-10 is the scientific officer who issued Ex.PW-11 is the Scientific Officer, who on receipt of Ex.P7/letter from the court of the Magistrate, subjected the underwear of the accused and the semen found therein to chemical analysis and also sent sample blood and salvai to the Government Hospital for examination.P8 is the Chemical Report and Ex.P9 is the Serologist's Report.x) PW-12, on coming to know about the incident, went in search of the husband of D-1 so as to inform him about the death of his wife and child.At about 3.30 P.M., he found both the accused and the husband of D1 at a bungalow.He took the husband of D1 along with him in his motorcycle without informing him of the incident.He saw the accused leaving that place in another vehicle.xi) PW-13 was summoned to the police station for enquiry and in his presence, the accused made a confession statement and the admissible portion thereof is Ex.xii) PW-14 is the Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL, Yercaud, and he has been examined to speak about the working condition of the telephone viz., Telephone connection No.222612, in the house where the offence was committed.xiii) PW-15 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2003 and the said statement is marked as Ex.xiv) PW-16 is the Scientific Officer.After making observation and examination of the scene of occurrence, the articles available therein, and the posture and location of the burnt bodies, he forwarded his report under Ex.xv) PW-17 is the Revenue Divisional Officer.As the death of D-1 was within three years of marriage, he conducted enquiry and in that course, held inquest over the bodies of the deceased and the inquest report is Ex.His enquiry report is marked as Ex.P16, wherein, it is concluded that the death was not a result of dowry harassment and that it is a suspicious death.xvi) PW-18 is the village Administrative Officer.On information, he along with his Assistant reached the scene of occurrence and found the front door unbolted from inside and it got opened just by placing hands thereon.PW-16 and his Assistant attested Ex.P18/Observation mahazar, prepared by the Investigating Officer.xvii) PW-19 is the Medical Officer, who has issued the Certificate under Ex.xviii) PW-20 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of Ex.P23 requisition from the Investigating Officer and Ex.P24 from the court, examined the accused for the injury found at his neck and for virility.As regards the abrasion found on the neck of the accused, he opined that such injury is possible due to a finger-nail scratch.P25 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-26 is the virility certificate.xix) PW-21 is the court clerk who forwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for chemical examination.xx) PW-22 is the Judicial Magistrate, who passed remand order Ex.P29 against the accused.He has stated that the police did not file any petition to record the confession of the accused and that the accused voluntarily stated that he committed the offence, however, he did not record the same in the remand order.xxi) PW-23 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses including PW3 and those statements have been marked as Ex.xxii) PW-24 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies on receipt of Exs.P44 and 45 requisition from the police.As regards D-1, he issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P46, wherein, the following has been noticed:-" External Appearances: Face : Hair burnt on the front of scalp upto the back of the parietal bones, both eye lids burnt on both sides and closed.Blood present on the nostrils.Tongue protruded and clenched between the teeth.1) Extensive 2 (degree) burns over the front on all the parts and over the back on all parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back most of the buttocks and both sole of feet.The extent of the total burnt area is 85% and the unburnt area is 15% approximately.2) There is a depression on the 4 side of the head 4" above the left ear.Internal Examination:- .....Skull: Depressed fracture on the parietal bone 4" above the left ear measuring about 2" x 1" x = cm. size.No blood in the calvarium.Brain tissue immediately below the fractured area is lacerated measuring 2" x 1" x =" cm. size.Neck: Hyoid bone normal. ....."As to the cause of death, it is opined that D-1 would appear to have died of shock due to head injury and burn injuries.P47 is the post mortem certificate issued in respect of D2 and in the said certificate, it is opined that D-2 would appear to have died of shock due to burn injuries.By referring to his noting in the post-mortem certificate that tongue was protruding and teeth clenched, the Doctor, while deposing before court, stated that the deceased would have been alive at the time when the accused lighted them.xxiii) PW-25 is the Head Constable, who took the dead bodies to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.PW-26 is the Police Photographer who took photographs of the scene of occurrence in 11 angles.P48 series are the photographs and Ex.P49 series are the negatives thereof.xxiv) PW-27 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the complaint from PW-1, registered a case in Crime No.350/03, prepared FIR under Ex.P50 and forwarded copies thereof to his superior officers.xxvi) PW-29 is the police photographer who photographed and videographed the crime scene and the statement of the accused.P55 is the photo of the accused, Ex.The accused took him to the scene of occurrence and produced the dough-roller, shirt, pant and underwear from the kitchen and also a phone register and the same were seized under mahazar in the presence of witnesses.He examined the witnesses on different dates and the statement of PW-2 Selvi as regards the occurrence was recorded through video.On 01.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.Between 19.08.2003 and 14.11.2003, he examined 56 witnesses including Doctors, R.D.O. & V.A.O., and recorded their statements.After collecting all materials, he laid charge sheet against the accused before the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC.He also laid a separate charge sheet against the husband of D1 and other relatives for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials put forth against him by the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the commission of the offence and filed a statement, wherein, he has stated that D-1 was agonised on account of the attitude of her brothers, who were not helping her; that on 15.08.2003, he went to work along with his brother and only at 3.30 P.M., through PW-12 Ravi, they came to know that D-1 self-immolated her along with the child; that the Investigating Officer tortured him to give a confession statement to the effect that he had murdered D1 after committing rape on her and torched her along with D2; that he is an innocent; that he never produced any material object as alleged by the police; that the confession before the D.R.O. was also obtained under coercion and threat and that a false case has been foisted against him.DW-2, the sister of the accused, has deposed that on 13.3.2008, D1 phoned her stating that her brother and his wife have forcibly sent her out of their house when she went to them, asking for a loan of Rs.10,000/- and that on 15.08.2003 at 9 A.M., she again received a phone call from D1 stating that she was very upset as her brother and his wife have scolded her and therefore, she does not like to live.DW-3 is the Branch Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, and he has stated that on 20.08.2003, the accused came to the Bank and redeemed the jewel pledged with the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M.DW4 is the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL.During re-examination, he has stated that billing facility is available only for outgoing calls and not for incoming calls.As referred to earlier, Exs.D1 to D11, viz., photo of one Dhanapal, carbon copy of the bill dated 15.02.2004, statements given by witnesses during inquest, telegram, jewel loan register and the signature of the accused found therein, have been marked as defence side documents.5-B. CW-1 is the court witness and he is residing adjacent to the house of the accused.According to him, while having lunch, he heard noise and on coming out, he found smoke emanating from the house of the accused and few persons standing there and further, he climbed up and went to the roof top and removed four or five tiles and by that time, persons standing outside the house entered and found both the deceased dead with burn injuries.5-C. The trial court, after exhaustive consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and of the arguments advanced on either side, found the appellant/accused guilty of all the charges and passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforementioned.The said order is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant elaborately argued the matter, raising several grounds, in his endeavour to assail the order passed by the trial court.At the foremost, he submits that the emphatic case of the defence is that D1, who was very upset and felt dejected as she was abandoned by her brothers and not helped by them while her family was in adversity, took the extreme decision of self-immolating herself along with her child.He further clarified that such burn injuries would be possible if the deceased were burnt after being laid in a state of unconsciousness.He has specifically stated that he could not find carbon stains on the oesophagus.According to him, if it is a case of self-immolation, definitely, the deceased would have run here and there and the burn injuries would be quite different from the ones noticed by him.He further suggested that she would have been burnt after made to lie on floor unconscious.He also withstood the rigour of cross-examination and emphatically stated that it is a case of murder.It would not be possible for a person who has sustained deadly head injury, as could be seen from the medical evidence, to self-immolate herself and her child.Now, the incriminating circumstances available against the accused may be dealt with.All of them are independent witnesses and of course, PW-6 seems to be a person known well to the accused and was friendly towards him.PW-4 has stated that he met the accused on the occurrence day at his residence between 1 and 1.15 p.m. for the purpose of laying a pipe line, and the accused refused therefor stating that he has some domestic works to do.PW-5 has stated that on the same day at about 2 or 2.10 p.m., while proceeding along with his brother, he saw the accused coming out from his residence.PW-6, who seems to be a friend of the accused, was approached by the accused at 2.10 P.M. with a request to drop him at the electrical shop, whereupon, he took him in his motor-cycle.He has specifically stated that while travelling in the motor-cycle, the accused asked him to drive fast and therefore, he asked him as to what happened, for which, the accused answered that he had done a mistake.According to PW-6, he could understand the meaning of what was said by the accused as 'mistake' only after seeing the newspapers.He has stated that at about 2.30 pm.the accused came and purchased electrical goods from the shop and at that time, he was seen disturbed.PW-8 is the Supervisor at the school where the accused and his brother were working on the occurrence day.His emphatic evidence is that the accused left the working place for purchase of electrical goods by 12.45 p.m. and returned back at 3 P.M. The time gap at which each of the witnesses saw the accused at various places and the sequence arising therefrom, is quite natural and fortifies the case of prosecution that it was the accused, who alone was present at the scene house while D-1 and D-2 were alone there, and indulged in the heinous crime.As pointed out earlier, PW-2, in her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and while deposing before court, consistently stated that the accused had been waiting for a right opportunity to have sex with her sister-in-law and on the occurrence, he used the loneliness prevalent in the residence to satiate his vicious desire.Further, incriminating materials were seized at his instance.In fact, the altered F.I.R reached the court on the same day without any delay.Similarly, referring to the evidence of DW-3, it is argued that inasmuch as the accused was present in the Bank on 20.08.2003 for redeeming the jewel pledged, the prosecution version that he was arrested on the same day is unbelievable.The obscure evidence of DW-3 that the accused came to the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. seems to be strange and does not infuse confidence.On the face of the same, if one looks at the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the accused was arrested on that day at 1.30 P.M., it would be clear that the prosecution version in that regard is quite acceptable.From the foregoing discussion, the incriminating circumstances and materials made available by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime can be categorised as follows:-The motive assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.(iv) The accused procured kerosene from PW-2 and utilised the same for torching the bodies.(v) He subdued and silenced PW-2 under threat and, with her help, created a make-believe story that it was a case of suicide.(vi) It is the brother of D-1/PW-1, who set the law in motion by preferring a written complaint with the police and the allegation was that the husband of D-1 along with his family members demanded dowry and ill-treated her, due to which, she committed suicide.Scientific investigation should substitute the conventional ones.Arduous efforts should be made to improve the system in order to increase the certainty of conviction and punishment for the most serious offenders and repeaters.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code