The sole accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Chennai in S.C.No.189 of 2010 challenges his conviction and sentence.

2. The said Judge while acquitting him from a charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act convicted and sentenced him as under:

Conviction	Sentence
(i) 498(A) I.P.C.	3 years R.I.
(ii) 306 I.P.C.	7 years R.I.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case runs as under:

(i) The accused/ appellant and the deceased Shenbagavalli were lovers. They have become life partners. They have set up their separate family. They have children.

(ii) On 06.03.2009, at about 8 p.m., Shenbagavalli was brought to the Government Royapettah Hospital with extensive burn injuries. P.W.8 – Doctor noticed several burn injuries on her. (Ex.P4 – Accident Register Copy). She was admitted an in-patient. P.W.10 – Sub-Inspector of Police, received intimation from the said Hospital. He went to the hospital and received Ex.P8 – complaint from the accused. Registered a case for an offence under Section 309 I.P.C. (Ex.P9 – F.I.R.). He took up his investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence. Prepared Ex.P10 – Observation Mahazer in the presence of witnesses. Drew Ex.P11 – Rough Sketch. In the presence of witnesses, he also recovered plastic can – (M.O.1) and match box – (M.O.2) under Ex.P12 – Mahazer. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. On 12.03.2009, he received death intimation from the hospital that Shenbagavalli had passed away.

(iii) P.W.11 – Inspector Ramalingam took up further investigation. He changed the Section of Law to Section 306 of I.P.C. (Ex.P13 – Alteration Memo). On 20.03.2009, he arrested the accused. P.W.9 – Kaja Mohideen, P.A.(General) to Collector, Chennai conducted enquiry. He recorded the statement of witnesses. His report is Ex.P7. The post-mortem Doctor conducted post-mortem. P.W.11 obtained Ex.P14 - Post-Mortem Certificate. Concluding his investigation, P.W.11 filed the final report for offences under Section 306 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act before the concerned Court.

4. After all the formalities were complied with, the appellant was charged for offences under Section 498 – A, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and under Section 306 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.

5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2.

6. On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the offences. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document on his side.

7. Appreciating the above evidence and considering the submissions of both sides, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act convicted and sentenced him under two counts as stated in para 2 supra.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that absolutely there is nill incriminating evidence as against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 or other witnesses does not substantiate the charges. The RDO ruled out any dowry harassment.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 9 establishes the charges framed against the accused. P.W.5 is very categorical that the accused had instigated his wife to commit suicide. The suspicion of the accused caused the death of his wife. P.W.9 – RDO also recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2, which contains many incriminating evidence against the accused. Thus, the learned Judge has rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced him.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the Trial Court's judgment and also the evidence and o