( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, medak at Sangareddy in Sessions Case No. 473 of 2001. the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

( 2 ) THE allegations on the basis of which charge was framed against the accused/appellant was that he had committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene over her and setting her on fire. Charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents.

( 3 ) PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He stated that he gave his daughter in marriage to the accused. 1 tula of gold and 30 tulas of silver, one wrist watch, one fan, one almirah and some utensils were given in dowry. As per the agreement, after the marriage, he had also to give one tula of gold in addition to what he had already given. After the marriage, he sent tula gold ear stud through his son and another son-in-law, to the accused. After handing over the ear stud, his son and son-in-law returned. On the next day morning a person came from Chetla gouraram i. e. where the accused and deceased live and informed that his daughter sustained burn injuries. Then he, his wife yellamma and his son Yadagiri went to the house of accused on a scooter. His daughter was in front of the house at varandah with burn injuries over the entire body. On hip enquiry, his daughter told him that one day earlier, when he had sent tula gold ear stud, the accused had become angry and he had stated that she had illegal intimacy with her brother-in-law Balaiah. Balaiah was the person who had gone to the house of accused along with the son of the witness to hand over the ear stud. The deceased told the witness that accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and thereafter left the house. Then the witness went to the police Station, Toopran and presented a complaint. Ex. P-1 was the complaint. Police shifted his daughter to Gandhi Hospital, secunderabad for treatment. On the same day at about 10 p. m. , she died in gandhi Hospital. M. R. O. recorded his statement at Gandhi Hospital. Some of the officers visited the hospital and recorded the statement of his injured daughter. He was also examined by the Police.

( 4 ) IN his cross-examination he stated that he got the information about the occurrence at about 7 a. m. and immediately he went to the house of the accused. He did not know the name of the person who had informed him. He reached the house of accused at about 8 a. m. The distance between his village and the house of the accused was 8 kilometres. His son took him on scooter. He denied the suggestion that by the time he reached the house of the accused, the deceased had been shifted to the hospital. He did not know that accused was working as farm servant under one Vittal Reddy and that the accused was working with Viltal reddy for 24 hours. The lips, eyebrows and hair of the deceased had completely burnt. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was unconscious and was not able to talk when he saw her. His wife was in Gandhi hospital along with their daughter till her death. At about 10 a. m. , his daughter was admitted in Gandhi Hospital. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was taken to the hospital by Mr. Vittal Reddy. After the marriage, the deceased went to the house of accused and stayed with him for 20 days. Thereafter, she came back to the witness's house and went back after 4 days. She had gone to the house of accused 8 days before the date of occurrence. His daughter suffered with small pox at the time of marriage. She was also admitted in hospital for 4 days as she had small pox. He denied the suggestion that when the deceased went back