The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for immediate prior cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide and the need for intentional aid or instigation to abet suicide.

1. The appellants were convicted for an offence under Sec.498-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo RI for 3 months and were further convicted for an offence under Sec.306 r/w 34 IPC and each sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default, to undergo RI for 3 months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Judge-2), Kancheepuram dated 4.10.2007 in S.C.No.135 of 2007.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The deceased Mutharasi was the daughter of P.W.1. Ethammal. When she was studying IX Standard, she fell in love with the first appellant and both of them were married at Ekambaranathar Temple at Kancheepuram against the wishes of P.W.1. After their marriage, they lived for three months in their village at Kaliapatti. Thereafter, they came to Kancheepuram and started living. The 2nd appellant is the mother of the first appellant. They lived together for nine years. The first appellant and the deceased had two children born to them out of the wedlock. However, of late, the appellant started demanding dowry from the deceased. P.W.1 gave presentation to her daughter. She also purchased a house site in the name of her daughter and constructed a hut. The deceased and the first appellant were living in the house.

3. The first appellant was employed in a die factory. He was irregular in going to work. Since the appellants were demanding motor cycle, P.W.1 gave Rs.10,000/-. Even thereafter, the appellants were demanding more money and the second appellant was telling that she would get her son married to another woman. The deceased was telling to P.Ws.1 and P.W.7 about the demand of vehicle and jewels and also about the cruel treatment of the appellants. On 4.9.2006 around 7.00 a.m, the first appellant quarreled with the deceased, poured kerosene over the deceased and left the house chiding her to burn herself and die. At 7.30 a.m, unable to bear the cruelty of the appellants, the deceased poured some more kerosene and set fire to herself.

4. The 2nd appellant and her second son Prakash took the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kancheepuram where she was admitted. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station recorded the statement of the deceased and registered a case in Cr.No.1242 of 2006 under Sec.498(A) and 307 IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. A request was sent to the learned Magistrate for recording her statement. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram went to the hospital and on 4.9.2006 at 10.10 a.m and recorded her statement at 10.35 a.m. The deceased succumbed to burn injuries on 6.9.2006 at 2.15 p.m. On receipt of the intimation, the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station altered the first information report to 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He proceeded to the Hospital and conducted the inquest. He requested for a post mortem and post mortem was conducted. The Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and also obtained post mortem certificate and after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet against the appellants for the offence under Secs.498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram. On committal, the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram for trial. The case was taken on file in S.C.No.135 of 2007 and on the appearance of the accused, charges were framed and on denial of charges, trial was conducted. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, marked 17 documents produced 2 M.Os.

6. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the appellants are guilty for offence under Secs.498 -A 306 r/w 34 IPC and imposed the sentences as stated above. Aggrieved by which, the appellants are before this Court.

7. Mr.R. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when there are tw