MAHALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.291 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. He stood charged for offences under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 12.01.2012, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Vijaya. The accused is her husband. The accused and the deceased were residing in Periyasamy Nagar, Tuticorin. The marriage between them was solemnized before 11 years. They got two children. In due course of time, the accused developed the habit of drinking liquor and used to quarrel with the deceased. The deceased, however, managed to live with the accused. Some time before the occurrence, it is alleged that unable to bear the torture committed by the accused in drunken state, the deceased gave a complaint to the police. In the police station, during enquiry, they reached a compromise, in which, the accused assured to live with the deceased happily. Therefore, again they continued to live together as husband and wife.

(3.) Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She has stated about the motive and she has further stated that on the date of occurrence, on hearing the hue and cry, she rushed to the house of the deceased, where she found the accused setting fire to the deceased. She has spoken about the fact that she took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.2 is the nephew of P.W.1. He has stated that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was as a result of love affair. According to him, on 08.04.2010, at 9 p.m., he went in search of P.W.1 and since, he was told that P.W.1 had gone to the house of the deceased, he also went to the house, where he witnessed the entire occurrence. P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased. She has also stated that on the crucial date of occurrence at 9 p.m., when she was in her house, she heard the hue and cry of the deceased from the house of the deceased. Then, she went to the house of the deceased. She found the deceased pouring kerosene on her body and then, the accused setting fire to her. P.W.4 has spoken about the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared and also the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 is yet another neighbour of the deceased. He has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he rushed to the place of occurrence and he took the deceased to the hospital along with P.W.1 in 108 Ambulance. P.W.6 ? Dr.Rovino Victor has deposed that she admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital at Tuticorin. She has further stated that the deceased told her that while she was at her house, she poured kerosene to herself and then, the accused set fire. P.W.7 the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, who has stated that she rushed to the hospital on getting intimation and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased was fully conscious and she was in a fit mental state to make the dying declaration.