a) The first accused / first appellant is the husband of the deceased-Saraswathi.The second accused-Pappathi @ Sesili Pappa and third accused-Saveriya @ Saveriyan are the parents of the first accused.P.W.1-Michael, P.W.2-Selvi and P.W.3-Arockiyam are the brother-in-law, sister and father of thedeceased respectively.The deceased was given in marriage to the first accused /first appellant in the year 2002, as a result of which, they had got two maleborn.All of them were living together.From the time of marriage, all the threeaccused were torturing her, demanding money.On a number of occasions, thedeceased came to the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the same.He used togive money and also advise her to join her husband and live peacefully.On oneoccasion, a complaint was given to P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, All WomenPolice Station and thereafter, the parties were called, and the situation waspacified.Even thereafter, they continued to exert cruelty and demanding money.A complaint was given for the second time before the respondent-Police Station,and thereafter, they were called, and again they were advised.On the next dayto Pongal, she proceeded to her parental home and returned with the children onthe very day.On 18.01.2008, just before the occurrence, the deceased was beatenby the first accused.Then she went to a shop, purchased kerosene and broughtthe same in a can.After she came to the house, all the three accused personsteased her.Not satisfied, the first accused beat her, pushed her inside theroom, poured kerosene brought by her and set her ablaze, as a result of which,she sustained burn injuries.On hearing the distressing cry, a few persons camethere, and they attempted to quench the fire.Then she was taken to theGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin.P.W.21-Doctor attached to the GovernmentHospital, Tuticorin gave her initial treatment and issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy to that effect, wherein it has been recorded that she sustained80% burn injuries.The Sub-Inspector of Police concerned, who receivedintimation from the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, went to the hospital andrecorded the statement of the deceased marked as Ex.P1, wherein P.W.2 has alsoattested the same.On the strength of Ex.P19-Rough Sketch.He also recovered M.Os.1 to 8 from the place of occurrenceunder a cover of Ex.P20-Seizure Mahazar.d) Pending the investigation, on 30.01.2008, the deceased died.On receiptof the intimation from the hospital, P.W.20-Inspector of Police, altered theSections into 304-B and 302 IPC under Ex.P21 and the same was sent to the Court.e) P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of the requisition,proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P16-Inquest Report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin passed in S.C. No.271 of 2008 on 16.07.2009,whereby the appellants / accused 1 to 3 stood charged, tried and found guiltyunder Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC and each of them was awarded 3 yearsR.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence for the first charge underSection 498-A IPC, and also awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-and default sentence for the second charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:-P24-ExpressF.I.R. was despatched to the Court and the copies were sent to the higher-ups.b) On receipt of Ex.P14-Intimation from the hospital, P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, went to thehospital and verified as to the mental fitness of the deceased and after gettingthe opinion of P.W.6-Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to givedying declaration and getting a certificate therefor under Ex.P4, recorded thedying declaration of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.c) P.W.19-Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of F.I.R., proceededto the spot, made inspection and prepared Ex.P18-Observation Mahazar and alsoEx.He also sent a final report under Ex.P17 stating that there wasno dowry demand, and the deceased died out of burn injuries.f) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8, theDoctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate wherein he gave an opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of complications of burns.The viscera of the dead body were subjectedto chemical analysis which resulted in a report, viz. Ex.P9-Viscera Report.g) Further investigation was taken up by P.W.22-Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and thereafter, by P.W.23-Inspector of Police.P.W.23 completed theinvestigation on 13.03.2008, and filed final report against the accused beforethe concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of sessions,and necessary charges were framed.h) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, theprosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 24 exhibits and 8 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution,the accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Theydenied them as false.No defence witness was examined.After hearing thearguments of the counsel and looking into the available materials, the TrialCourt took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonabledoubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishments as referred toabove.Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at theinstance of the accused/appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused / appellants, the learnedcounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove the charges made on the accused.According to the prosecution,the occurrence has taken place on 18.01.2008 at about 9.15 a.m., and immediatelythe deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctortreated her at 9.30 a.m. and issued Ex.P22-Accident Register copy, wherein ithas been stated that she sustained 80% burn injuries.Pointing to this, thelearned counsel stated that if she had sustained 80% burn injuries, then surelyshe would not have been in a position to give any such statement as to theincident.Further, the counsel added that it is claimed by the prosecutionthat, on receipt of the intimation from the hospital, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice concerned, went to the hospital and recorded the statement which ismarked as Ex.P1, but the said Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined and noexplanation was forthcoming from the prosecution.He further submitted that theprosecution has marked Ex.P1 only through P.W.2 who is actually the sister ofthe deceased.4. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that inthe instant case, even a reading of Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that she wentto the shop and fetched kerosene with an intention to commit suicide andpursuant to which, after coming to the home, she committed suicide.The learnedcounsel also would add that the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P15-dyingdeclaration of the deceased, alleged to have been recorded by P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, and even the dyingdeclaration would indicate that it was the act of all the three accused, butnowhere in any one of the documents, A2 and A3 are implicated and hence, it wasonly a developed version by the deceased against the entire family members, andit is also evident from the records that earlier, she had given two complaintsagainst the first accused which would clearly indicate that she had a grudgeagainst the family members to implicate them all.He further submitted thateven in the dying declaration, there was nothing spoken about any dowryharassment or anything and there was no whisper about A2 or A3 that theyinstigated A1 to do certain act.The learned counsel further added that itwas a clear case of suicide and these documents were marked to show that A1 toA3 have committed the offence.6. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that shewas admitted in the hospital on the date of occurrence itself, but she died onlyafter 12 days due to complications of burns and therefore, Section 302 of theCode will not apply to the facts of the case.Learned counsel for the accused / appellants, put forth the second lineof argument that it was a case where the first accused was unarmed and hence itwas not his intention to murder his wife.He further submitted that at the timeof occurrence, the first accused requested the deceased to prepare coffee andwhen she refused to do it, he got provoked and in the circumstances, he hadacted so and hence, it would clearly indicate that the act of the accused wouldnot come under the penal provisions of murder.Hence, according to the counsel,all the accused have got to be acquitted.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.After examining the deceased, P.W.21 issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy which would show that the deceased sustained 80% burn injuries atthe time of admitting into the hospital.Following the inquest made by P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer,the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8-Doctor, and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate in which he gave a categorical opinion that the deceased diedout of burn injuries and complications thereon.The fact that she died out ofburn injuries was proved by the prosecution beyond any controversy.In order to substantiate the involvement of all the three accusedpersons in the crime of dowry demand and cruelty and also causing her death bypouring kerosene and setting her ablaze, the prosecution had no direct evidenceto offer.It relied only upon circumstantial evidence.Insofar as the firstcharge of dowry demand and cruelty is concerned, i.e. under Section 498-A ofIPC, the Court is unable to find any evidence insofar as A2 and A3 areconcerned.Admittedly, the first accused, after the marriage with the deceased,have got two children and they were living separately from A2 and A3, and on twooccasions, complaints were given by the deceased to All Women Police Station andalso to the respondent-Police.A perusal of those complaints would clearlyindicate that nowhere she has whispered anything about A2 or A3 and thus, itwould clearly indicate that there was no cruelty exerted by A2 or A3 on her,insofar as the demand for dowry.Under the circumstance, it would clearlyindicate that A2 and A3 have no role to play insofar as the crime of dowrydemand is concerned.All would clearly indicate that since A1 was not employed due to hisdisease, he was torturing her, and hence A1 has got to be found guilty underSection 498-A IPC.Insofar as the second charge of murder is concerned, on an analysis ofthe evidence available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the case inrespect of A2 and A3 cannot be said to have been proved.On the date ofoccurrence, i.e. 18.01.2008 at 9.15 a.m., after the occurrence, the deceased wastaken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctor attended her at9.30 a.m. and issued Accident Register copy and the same has been marked asEx.Actually, a statement was given by the deceased in the hospital and thesame was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10.00 hours, pursuantto which a case came to be registered by the respondent-Police.A comment wasmade regarding the non-examination of the Sub-Inspector of Police who recordedthe statement.It is true that he was not examined, but the prosecution hasrelied on the evidence of P.W.2 fortunately, wherein she has deposed that shesigned Ex.In Ex.P1, it is specifically stated that the deceased went to theshop for purchase of kerosene to commit suicide, and after her returning to thehouse, the first accused, with an intention of causing death, beat her, pushedher inside the room, poured kerosene and set her ablaze, and she has not statedthat A2 or A3 instigated A1 to commit the offence.Further, P.W.17-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti,Madurai District recorded the dying declaration of the deceased within a shortspan of 1 hour and 45 minutes.A reading of the dying declaration makes it clearthat it was her husband, the first accused, beat the deceased, pushed her insidethe room and poured kerosene from the can.The occurrence has been spoken to bythe deceased in clear and unambiguous terms and hence this Court finds noillegality or infirmity in the dying declaration.P.W.17 has categoricallystated that when she went to the hospital, she first verified as to the mentalfitness of the declarant to give such a declaration, and it was actuallyrecorded only after due certification by P.W.6-Doctor, as could be seen fromEx.The Doctor was all along present at the time of recording the statement.All these would clearly indicate the involvement of the first accused in thecrime, and nowhere the Court is able to notice any evidence as against A2 and A3insofar as the offence of murder is concerned.Hence the contention put forthby the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that the deceased made anattempt to commit suicide for which she bought kerosene and set her ablaze andhence it was a case of self-immolation, cannot be accepted.The accused was all along quarreling with the deceased earlier whichnecessitated her to give two complaints, one to the All Women Police Station andthe other to the respondent-Police Station.Pursuant to both these complaints,A1 was called for and the situation was pacified, and even then, on the date ofoccurrence, he was quarreling with her.She went to the shop and purchasedkerosene, but it was not she who poured kerosene on her.Immediately, the firstaccused / first appellant, beat her and also poured kerosene on her and set herablaze.In the circumstances, it was he who acted so.In view of the reasons stated supra, the judgment of the trial Courtfinding the first accused / first appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC hasgot to be sustained.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by theTrial Court on the first accused / first appellant under Section 498-A areconfirmed.The conviction of A1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is modified and heis convicted under Section 302 of IPC.The life sentence and fine amount imposedby the Trial Court are confirmed.Insofar as the second and third accused are concerned, the judgment ofconviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court is set aside, and they areacquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The appellants 2 and 3 /accused 2 and 3 are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence isrequired in connection with any other case.The fine amounts if any, paid bythem shall be refunded to them.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code