The dying declaration is relevant only when the cause of death is under enquiry, and it cannot be used as a piece of evidence for an offence under Section 498[A] IPC if the cause of death is not in question.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction of the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 498[A] IPC passed by the Courts below. The revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, for the said offence.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner/accused was married to one Dhanalakshmi [the deceased], who is the third daughter of Srinivasan [P.W.1]. The couple were blessed with two girl children. On 23.06.2007 at around 10.30 in the night, Dhanalakshmi tried to self-immolate and the accused attempted to save her. Dhanalakshmi was admitted in the Government Hospital Ramanathapuram, where she was examined by Dr. Noorul Halwa [P.W.6]. She was found to have suffered 80% burn injuries and the accused who had tried to save her also had 30% burn injuries. The Accident Registers are Exs.P3 and P4 relating to Dhanalakshmi and the accused respectively. The police was informed, that on 24.06.2007 at around 4.55 a.m. Mr. Thangavel [P.W.9] Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kamudhi, recorded the dying declaration of Dhanalakshmi in the hospital and the same was marked as Ex.P8. In the evidence of Mr. Thangavelu [P.W.9], the Judicial Magistrate, he stated that Dhanalakshmi told him that the accused would beat her suspecting her fidelity and unable to withstand his beatings, she poured kerosene and set fire to herself. Dhanalakshmi succumbed to injuries on 26.06.2007 and on 27.06.2007 Dr. Malaiarasan [P.W.7] and Dr. Jeevajothi [P.W.8] performed autopsy on the body of Dhanalakshmi and the Postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P5. They have opined that the death was due to burns. Since Dhanalakshmi had died within seven years of her marriage with the accused, the police informed the Revenue Divisional Officer and accordingly, Ms. Poongodi [P.W.10], R.D.O. and the Executive Magistrate conducted inquest by examining several witnesses. The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P9. In the opinion of the Executive Magistrate, there was no dowry harassment and that Dhanalakshmi had died because her husband suspected her fidelity and ill treated her. The police conducted further investigation and filed a final report for offences under Sections 306 and 498[A] IPC.

3. In the trial Court, 14 witnesses were examined, 15 Exhibits and 3 Material Objects were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 498[A] IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC; and one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498[A] IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused have filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.8 of 2011, which was heard by the Additional District and Sessions Court [Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram]. The appellate Court completely disbelieved the dying declaration given by the deceased and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. But relying upon the dying declaration, the first appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498[A] IPC. Hence, this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised one singular point before this Court. He submitted that when the first appellate Court had completely disbelieved the dying declaration and had acquitted the accused for the offence under section 306 IPC, it cannot rely upon the dying declaration to convict him for the offence under Section 498[A] IPC.

5. In order to satisfy my judicial conscience, I perused the records to find ou