MARIAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant paramour of the deceased was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/= in default to undergo R.I., for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/= in default to undergo R.I., for one year for the offence under Section 450 IPC. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case as put forth by the prosecution as per the charges is that on 15.9.2000 at about 3.30 pm., within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station, the appellant trespassed into the residence of the deceased and thereby committed offence of house trespass punishable under Section 450 IPC. During the course of the same transaction and at the same time since the accused was having illicit intimacy with the deceased, indulged in quarrel with the deceased since she refused to continue such relationship, assaulted her and poured kerosene on her and set fire and in pursuance of which, the deceased died on the same date at 7.30 pm., in the hospital, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) P.W.1 is a neighbour who after hearing the noise emerging from the residence of the deceased, reached there and found the deceased with burn injuries in the door steps of her residence and with the help of the accused and others poured water on her. Equally, P.Ws.2 and 3 are also neighbours who have corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. Though P.Ws 1 to 3 spoke about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the appellant, they did not divulge anything about this as well as the accused running away from the scene of occurrence and therefore they have been treated as hostile. P.W.4 is the husband of the deceased who has stated that he went out of the residence for work and after hearing the information about the occurrence, reached home and found the deceased with burn injuries. Though during the course of investigation he has divulged about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the appellant, and also stated that he assaulted them on earlier occasion, he did not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. P.W.5 is the father of the deceased who spoke only about the information about the death of the deceased. P.W.6 has been examined as attesting witness for preparation of mahazar by the investigating officer and he has only admitted his signature in the mahazar and claimed innocence about the contents of the mahazar. P.W.7 has attested the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch, but only during the course of cross examination by the State after treating him as hostile it was admitted by him about the signature and contents of the mahazar. P.W.8 has been examined as witness for the arrest and recovery. But, since he did not support the version pot forth by the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile.