MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the Additional district-cum-Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai made in S. C. No. 88/2002 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and default sentence for the first charge and life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence for the second charge, has brought this appeal before this court.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P. W. 1 is the father and P. W. 11 is the brother of the deceased Sayavathi. THE deceased was given in marriage to the accused and got four issues out of which two were alive at the time of occurrence. At the time of marriage, "seervarisai" were given to the accused. But he was not satisfied. On different occasions, he treated the deceased cruelly and was asking for more dowry. THE accused demanded money for purchasing a motor bike. But P. W. 1 pacified the deceased that he will meet the demand of the accused later. Since the accused was not satisfied with P. W. 1's reply, on the date of occurrence, i. e. , 30. 3. 2002 at about 7. 00 p. m. he poured kerosene on the deceased, set her ablaze and went out of the house. Immediately P. W. 1 and others were informed about the occurrence. But, no one witnessed the occurrence. (b) P. W. 1 along with his family members, took the deceased to Tanjore Government Hospital where she was medically examined and treated by P. W. 16, the doctor, attached to Tanjore Government Hospital. He also recorded the statement given by the deceased, which is noted in Ex. P. 6, the accident Register. Despite treatment, the deceased died on 31. 3. 2002 at 7. 30 a. m. An intimation was given through Out Post Police Station to the respondent police Station and P. W. 19, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation, proceeded to Tanjore Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 under Ex. P. 1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered under Section 302 IPC and the Express F. I. R. , Ex. P. 9, was despatched to the court. An intimation was sent to P. W. 22, the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Tanjore, who went over to the hospital. On being certified by P. W. 16, the doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration, P. W. 22, the Judicial Magistrate recorded the dying declaration in the presence of p. W. 17, the doctor, which is marked as Ex. P. 11. THEn section 498-A IPC was included. THE Express F. I. R. , Ex. P. 12 was sent to the Court. (c) P. W. 23, the Investigating Officer, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared ex. P. 4-the Observation Mahazar and Ex. P. 13-the rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. P. W. 23, conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 14, the Inquest Report. Following the inquest, a requisition was sent to Tanjore Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy and the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P. W. 18, the doctor attached to Tanjore Government Hospital who gave the postmortem certificate, Ex. P. 8 wherein she had opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the extensive burn injuries. (d) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused on 4. 4. 2002. THE accused came forward to give a confessional statement in the presence of two witnesses, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex. P. 2, pursuant to which a kerosene can was recovered under a cover of Mahazar. THE accused was sent for judicial remand. (e) On completion of investigation, the Investigating officer filed the final report and the case was committed to Court of Sessions. Necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution marched 23 witnesses and also relied upon 14 exhibits and 4 material objects. (f) On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution case, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr. P. C. , as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined and the trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, found the accused guilty as per the charge under Section 498-A and 302 IPC and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and default sentence for the first charge and life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence for the second charge which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, one Sayavathi, the daughter of P. W. 1, was given in marriage to the accused before ten years and was having four children out of which two were alive during the relevant period. Following an incident that took place on 30. 3. 2002, the deceased sustained burn injuries and was taken to hospital for treatment and despite treatment she died on 31. 3. 2002. Following the inquest, the Investigating Officer sent the dead body for postmortem. P. W. 18, the doctor, attached to Tanjore government Hospital conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate, Ex. P. 8, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the extensive burn injuries sustained by her. The fact that the deceased died out of burn injuries was not disputed by the accused. Hence, without any impediment, it can be factually recorded so.