P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. The Sessions judge, Kottayam in S. C. No.8 of 2009 (Old No. 277 of 2006) on his file found the respondent in DSR 3 of 2009 guilty for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. Seeking confirmation of the death sentence, reference was made by the Sessions Judge as mandated under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the convict - respondent in the DSR (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has preferred the appeal, Crl.A. 1134 of 2009.

Prosecution case:

2. PW8 Sainulabdeen, who retired from Army whileworking in the Rank of Subedar Major, had a son and a daughter. The daughter was named Sareena. Sareena, while pursuing her Post Graduate Degree in literature, was married to the appellant on 25.10.2001. The appellant was stated to be employed in Muscat and had immovable assets as well as business in vehicles. At the time of marriage, Sareena was given 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and a Delux Maruti car of which Ext.P17 is the Registration particulars. After the marriage, the appellant did not go abroad; but he continued some business in automobiles at Paippadu, near Changanacherry. The business was not successful. The matrimony was blessed with a daughter in the following year. On the 40th day of the birth of the child, who was named Amisha, ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns were obtained from the relatives. The appellant, who was a spendthrift , had squandered all the gold ornaments and the money. Thereafter, the appellant had been demanding money from PW.8. On 25.8.2006, the appellant telephoned PW.8 and demanded Rs.50,000/- and also to hand over a fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of the child. But PW.8 was not amenable. On the next day, at about 10 A.M., the appellant strangulated Sareena with a shawl which was marked as MO6. When she became unconscious, she was lifted to the store room attached to the kitchen of the house. Amisha, who had been to the neighbourhood and playing with the daughters of PW.4, was called back home and she was also strangulated with MO6. When she became unconscious she was also lifted to the store room. He cut down the rubber tube connecting the gas cylinder with the stove and took the gas cylinder to the store. Then it was noticed that Sareena was moving. He took M.O.5, a wooden model of a snake boat kept in the show case and inflicted severe injuries at the head, face and neck of both Sareena and Amisha. Then the appellant sprinkled kerosene, which was kept in M.O.12 bottle, over the face of both. The regulator of the gas cylinder was then opened and ignited. The gas caught fire with explosion. Hearing the explosion, the neighbours ran to the house which was found locked from inside. The tape recorder and television were switched on in full swing. PW.3 Ratheesh, an immediate neighbour and others asked the appellant to open the door. The appellant did not heed. So, they attempted to kick open the door, but in vain. By the time, the appellant opened the back door. PW.3 and others entered the house and found that Sareena and Amisha, who were lying in the store room, were on flames. Water was poured over and put off the fire. Amisha was taken out first and rushed to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla, where PW.11 was working as a medical officer. PW11, after examining Amisha, declared her 'brought dead' with a history of burn injuries. Sareena was also lifted to the very same hospital. She was also declared 'brought dead'. The matter was informed to the police by phone for which Ext.P8 treatment report was prepared. Some of the gathered telephoned the matter to the uncle of Sareena who was examined as PW.1. PW.1, who was running a hotel at Kollakadavu, rushed to the hospital and found Sareena and Amisha dead with burns and other injuries.

Law in motion:

3. PW.1 rushed to the Changanacherry Police Station and gave Ext.P1 First Information Statemen