The main legal point established in the judgment is that there must be legal evidence to support the conclusion of the appellant's conduct in not providing sufficient income to his wife driving her to commit suicide.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence passed by the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.101 of 2002 dated 211. 2002, wherein, the appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the house owner and P.W.4, tenant of the house where the deceased was living with the accused/appellant. Sasikala, the wife of the appellant was the younger daughter of P.W.1. Prior to the marriage, the deceased had love affair with the appellant and ultimately the appellant married her at the intervention of P.W.1 in a temple in Trust Puram. Her mother did not like the marriage and said to have committed suicide. Subsequent to the marriage, the appellant and the deceased/Sasikala were living in Choolaimedu separately and they have a child aged about 2 ½ years out of their wedlock.

3. The marital life of the deceased was not so happy and she had financial difficulties. Now and then, she used to get money from P.W.1 and P.W.3. As and when the deceased had any problem in the matrimonial house, her sister Rajeswari used to mediate and resolve the dispute. According to the prosecution, the deceased made a demand for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to P.W.1, who in turn wanted 15 days for payment of the said amount. On the very same day at 8 P.M., again the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and informed her brother/P.W.3 that her mother-in-law was making a demand of Rs.15,000/-. She went home and thereafter, the appellant informed them that Sasikala/the deceased doused herself in Kerosene and set her ablaze. P.W.2, the house owner of the appellant saw the flames from the window and with the help of neighbours P.W.2 , broke open the door and found Sasikala burning with flames. The fire was extinguished then.

4. The appellant preferred a complaint before the Choolaimedu Police Station and the complaint was received by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police and the case was registered in Criminal No.1583 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Since the deceased died within seven years of marriage, the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for Postmortem. Thereafter, he submitted the report to the police expressing the opinion that further investigation is required.

.5. In the meanwhile, based upon the F.I.R., P.W.8, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range took up the case for investigation and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P1 and a rough plan, Ex.P9 in the place of occurrence and then he examined the witness and recorded their statements. He recovered a plastic can M.O.1 under recovery Mahazar. After his retirement, P.W.9/the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the case and further investigated, received the report from the Tahsildar and altered the case from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498 (A) and 304 (b) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, recorded the statement of Dr.C.Manoharan, who conducted the postmortem. He arrested the accused on 112. 2000 and sent him for remand. Thereafter, then Assistant Commissioner of Police who took charge of the investigation conducted further investigation and laid down the final report against the appellant for the offence as stated above.

6. When the incriminating material and circumstances that appeared against the appellant was put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied those evidence.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded money and subjected her to cruelty and also caused dowry death of his wife. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence found the appellant not guilty under Section 304 (b) IPC and Section (4) of Dowry Prohibition Act and