R KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the verdict of conviction in S.C.No.39/2006 convicting the appellant/accused U/s.302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Rajalakshmi by pouring kerosene and set fire on her and imposing Life Imprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated case of prosecution is as follows:-

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Issac Manuel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that at the time of occurrence, the accused and deceased alone were available in the house; there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3; the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased stating that P.W.3 Rajendran was having illicit intimacy with his wife. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that when the accused committed the offence in the locked room, no one was available inside the house and after hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 4 gone there and knocked the door and then only, the accused came out of his house with bottle and uttering the words "vd; kidtpiaf; bfhSj;jp tpl;Bld;. mtisa[k; bjhiyj;J tpl;Bld;. vd; re;BjfKk; bjhiye;J tpl;lJ",which has clearly proved that the accused alone caused injuries to the deceased by pouring kerosene and set fire on her, which lead to her death and motive has been proved. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that injuries sustained by the accused has been proved by way of examination of P.W.15-Dr.Ravikumar; dying declaration of the deceased also clearly establishes that the accused alone committed the offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the trial Court has taken all the aspects in a proper prospective and came to the correct conclusion and convicted the accused and hence, there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence and warrants no interference and thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.