ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is at the instance of the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.298 of 2000 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Palakkad, who are the accused in SC No.218 of 1998 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge (Additional), Palakkad. The revision petitioners are challenging the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.298 of 2000, as their appeal was allowed only in part, though their prayer was for an honourable acquittal.

2. The revision petitioners faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC, and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years each and fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 306 of IPC, with a default sentence of two months each and simple imprisonment for one year each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 498A of IPC with a default sentence of one month each, directing the sentences to run concurrently. In the appeal, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence under Section 306 of IPC was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for two years each, instead of four years, without modifying the fine amount. According to the revision petitioners, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case and so, they were liable to be acquitted, and hence they approached this Court with this Revision Petition.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case could be summarised as follows:

The 1st revision petitioner fell in love with the deceased named Chandrika and she eloped with him and entered into a marriage agreement on 01.09.1997. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the 1st revision petitioner, along with other revision petitioners, who are his parents and brother. The revision petitioners 2 to 4 were not happy with that marriage. They harassed and humiliated Smt.Chandrika, as she did not bring sufficient patrimony from her house. So, the 1st revision petitioner and Smt.Chandrika shifted their residence to a separate house. There also, they continued their ill-treatment, and the 1st revision petitioner also supported them by keeping silence. Unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment, on 24.12.1997, Smt.Chandrika attempted suicide by self immolation using kerosene. Due to the severity of the burn injuries suffered by her, she died at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on 29.12.1997.

4. On intimation received from the hospital, PW8 Head Constable attached to Mankara Police Station, recorded FI statement of Smt.Chandrika on 25.12.1997 at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. As her hands were burnt with full of blisters, she was not able to affix her signature or even to affix her thumb impression in the FI statement. On the basis of the FI statement, PW8 registered crime against the revision petitioners under Section 498A of IPC. Thereafter, Smt.Chandrika died and so, an offence under Section 306 of IPC was also incorporated. PW12 investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the revision petitioners under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

5. When the revision petitioners appeared before the trial court after committal, charge was framed under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC, to which all of them pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked Exts.P1 to P11 and identified M.O 1.

6. During examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the revision petitioners denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence. They were asked to enter upon their defence, as they were found not eligible to be acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D1(a) were marked from their side.

7. On analysing the facts and evidence, the trial court found the revision petitioners guilty under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appellate court also found nothing to interfere with the conviction, but the sentence under Section 306 of IPC was modified and reduced from four years to two years, keeping th