STATE Vs. P RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is the appellant. The respondent herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.208 of 2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 11.10.2011, the Trial Court has acquitted him. As against the same, the State has come up with the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Suleka Beevi. She was residing at Pettavaithalai in Trichirappalli District. She was already married and she had three children out of the said wedlock. After the birth of the third child, her husband deserted her and she was living separately. From that time onwards, she was living at her parental home at Pettavaithalai. The accused was then working as a Police Constable and residing in a house situated on the back of the house of her mother, but at a distance. In course of time, for about six months, the deceased had developed intimacy with the accused. For about one month, they were living as husband and wife. But, the accused did not give any amount for her expenditure. While so, on 07.01.2010, at 09.30 PM, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused was standing near a Soda Company at Pettavaithalai Village. The deceased went up to him and wanted him to visit her house. The accused told her that because of the illicit affair, he was facing problems at his house. Therefore, he requested her to avoid him meeting thereafter. But, the deceased was not convinced by the same. She came to her house, poured kerosene on her body and went to the place, where the accused was standing. She was keeping a Match Box in her hand. She threatened the accused that she would set fire to herself unless he came with her to her house. The accused warned her to go back to her house. But, the deceased did not relent. While so, it is alleged that the accused snatched away the Match Box and lift fire using a Match Stick and set herself ablaze. She sustained 70% of burn injuries.

(3.) I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.