RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai made in S.C.No.171 of 2000, whereby the sole appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded with life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months RI.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) P.Ws.1 and 2 are the children of one Palayam @ Usha, since deceased in the incident. THE accused/appellant was the paramour, living with her during the relevant time. Her husband was living at Vennangupattu village, Pondicherry. She was living with her children at Muthumariamman Koil Street, Aminjikarai. All along, she was quarrelling with the accused, since he refused to take her by way of regular marriage. On 12.09.1999, as usual, there was quarrel in that regard. Both children were also present. Following the same, in order to threat him, she poured kerosene on herself and the accused lit the match stick and set her fire. On hearing the distressing cry, P.W.4 and others came and they attempted to quench the fire. b) THE deceased was taken to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, where she was admitted by P.W.12, the Doctor at 10.25 p.m. She gave a statement, which was recorded by the Doctor and the same was marked as Ex.P.6. On admission, P.W.13, the Doctor gave treatment at 10.40 p.m. and she has also given statement to him. An intimation was given to the respondent police. P.W.10, the Head Constable, who was on duty at about 10.30 p.m., immediately proceeded to the hospital and recorded her statement, which was marked as Ex.P.4. On the strength of the same, a case came to be registered in Crime No.992 of 1999 under Section 309 r/w S.109 IPC. Ex.P.5, the FIR was despatched to the Court. c) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. On the strength of the said statement, he altered the case into one Section 307 IPC. THEn, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.18, the rough sketch. An intimation was given to the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, who was examined as P.W.17, at about 3.45 p.m. on 13.9.1999. He went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration at about 4.00 p.m. after being certified by the medical person that she was in a fit state of mind to give declaration. Ex.P.13 is the dying declaration proceedings. d) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 13.9.1999 and he was sent for judicial remand. Despite treatment, the said Palayam @ Usha died. An intimation was given to the respondent police station. THE case was altered to Section 302 IPC. THE Investigating Officer has conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.19, the inquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy. e) P.W.14, the Doctor attached to the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He has issued Ex.P.7, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the complications of burns. THE Investigating Officer produced P.Ws.1 and 2 before the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, who recorded their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.16 is the said Magistrate. THE proceedings were also filed. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body of the deceased were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department. Ex.P.17 is the Chemical Analyst's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) IT is not the fact in controversy that one Palayam @ Usha died in an incident that took place on 12.09.1999 at about 10.00 p.m. The deceased poured kerosene on her and set fire and following the incident, she was admitted in the hospital at about 10.25 p.m. by P.W.12, the Doctor. The first document, which came into existence, was Ex.P.6, wherein it has been clearly stated that she was conscious and it was herself, who poured kerosene and set fire herself. The second document, which came into existence, was the statement given by the deceased to the Head Constable of the respondent police station at about 11.45 p.m., which was marked as Ex.P.4. From Ex.P.4, it is found that she was conscious and she has given a statement that it was she, who made an attempt of commission of suicide by pouring kerosene and set ablaze. Both these documents have come into existence earlier. Apart from that, on the strength of Ex.P.4, the case came to be registered under Section 309 IPC. Thus, from the earlier part of the case, it could be seen that the deceased made an attempt to commit suicide.