IMPORTANT POINTS
When a plea of alibi is taken as a defence, the burden is on the part of the accused to prove that he is in some other place at the time when the alleged offence is committed. It is an excuse used by the accused when he is trying to avoid getting into trouble. In the above context, the plea of the appellant that he was not present in the house in question at the relevant point of time, but rather was away deserves rejection particularly when the evidence as to the plea of alibi is false and wholly worthless as rightly held by the trial court. Evidence tendered by the prosecution coupled with Ext.P6 Dying Declaration inter alia would show that the appellant accompanied the victim when she was taken to the hospital along with others. Hence, evidence tendered by the defence witnesses that the appellant was elsewhere from the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence has no significance to decide the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

N.ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant, who is the first accused in S.C. No.881/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Kollam, challenges the conviction and sentence passed against him by judgment dated 19.12.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). There were altogether three accused in the above case. The learned Sessions Judge, on trial, found that the second and third accused were not guilty and the first accused was guilty of the charges levelled against him. The court below convicted and sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The fine amount of Rs.25,000/-was ordered to be equally given to PW1 and his sister Omana under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'). Further, the court below sentenced the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 304B of IPC. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the first accused is before this Court.

2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as unfolded by the prosecution are stated hereunder:-

The appellant/first accused married the sister of PW1 on 8.9.2002 in accordance with the custom prevailing among the community. At the time of marriage, 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/-were given to her as patrimony and was also promised an assignment of 3 cents of property within one year. However, after three days of marriage, the appellant ill-treated the victim for getting the three cents of property and dropped her at PW1's residence. Hence, PW1 was constrained to execute Ext.P1 sale deed, assigning an area of 3 cents of property on the southern side of the entire property in the name of the victim on 20.3.2003. Originally, the said property belonged to their mother and after her death, the share of both the sisters were assigned to PW1 through a release deed. Thereupon, by Ext.P1 sale deed, PW1 assigned 3 cents to the victim. The appellant/first accused demanded sale of the above 3 cents of property as well as the share of his wife from the 20 cents of property owned by his wife's mother. Second and third accused are the sisters of the first accused. In furtherance of their common intention, the accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed the victim several times for shortage of dowry. The harassment continued till 27.7.2003. The appellant forced his wife – the victim to go back and stay at her parental house. On 25.7.2003, all the accused conspired together to do away with the victim and the appellant requested the victim by phone to come back to his house. Believing the request of the appellant as genuine, the victim boarded a bus at 2.30 p.m. and reached her matrimonial home after some time on 25.7.2003. In the morning of 27.7.2003, the appellant threatened the victim with dire consequences and asked her to take a decision regarding the property he had demanded earlier, failing which he threatened that the victim would not be permitted to stay back at the matrimonial home. Confronted with the above situation, the victim decided to go back home. When she was dressing to go back home at 7 a.m. on 27.7.2003, the appellant closed the bedroom door of his house and intentionally and knowingly poured kerosene on her body from the lantern and set fire on her inside the bedroom of the house namely, Thundil Puthen Veedu, bearing No.9/70, Kunduman, Velichikala Cheril, Pallimon Village. While so, she ran out of the room and then the second and the third accused pou