SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who stood charged as A-1 along with another arrayed as A-2, in S.C. No. 85 of 2004 under Sections 498(A), 302 read with 34 and 201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, found guilty under Sections 302, 498(A) and 201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default sentence and 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. respectively and 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment each under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, has challenged the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, while A-2 was acquitted of the charges.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:

(3.) Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has not proved its case in any way; that the charge has been framed as if the first accused poured kerosene on his wife, since deceased, and also set fire on her; that P.Ws.2 and 3, according to the prosecution, were eyewitnesses; that according to them, all of them saw the accused coming out of the house, locking the doors, pouring kerosene on the hut and setting fire, and thus, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is thoroughly contradictory and inconsistent to the prosecution case; that as regards P.Ws.2 and 3, according to P.W.3, on the date of occurrence at about 6.15 P.M., she was in her shop situated in the second street, and from the shop, the occurrence could not be witnessed; that if to be so, from the shop, she could not have come to the place to see the accused either coming out of the house or pouring kerosene and also setting fire, and hence, her evidence was of no use to the prosecution case.