S. Tamilvanan, J.

1. The criminal appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed by Judgment, dated 17.09.2013 made in S.C. No. 62 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

2. It is seen that the appellant is the sole accused and he was convicted under Section302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

3. As per the prosecution case, the Station House Officer, D'Nagar Police Station, Puducherry laid a report against the accused person, that on 01.05.2010 at about 9.30 hours, at No. 4, Tagore Street, Kathirkamam, Puducherry, the accused poured kerosene on his wife, deceased Seethadevi and lit fire and caused her death, as she had often quarrelled with the accused/her husband as regard his illicit intimacy with another lady, with the knowledge, such injuries would be likely to cause death or would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereby the accused is liable to be punished u/s. 302 IPC. Subsequently, to the marriage with the deceased, in the course of same transaction, the accused made unlawful demand of dowry such as two wheeler and money in connection with his marriage with the deceased wife and thereby the accused is liable to be punished under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. It is seen that originally the case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry as PRC No. 8/2011 and after furnishing the copies u/s. 207 Cr.P.C to the accused and as the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed u/s. 209 Cr.P.C to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherrry and on receipt of the same, the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry taken up the case on file as S.C. No. 62/2011 and made over the same for trial.

5. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, after satisfying that the accused had been furnished with free copies of the prosecution documents as required u/s. 207Cr.P.C., charges u/s. 302 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused. When the accused was questioned with regard to the substance of the charges, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 24 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.25 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the side of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After trial, the appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The accused is found not guilty under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is acquitted from the said charge. Aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 IPC, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.

8. Mr. Arun Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, as per the impugned Judgment, the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. He drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.4, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. She has admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased Seethadevi, daughter of the witness had attempted to commit suicide, when she was residing with her mother (P.W.4) in Darjeeling. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased Seethadevi had attempted to commit suicide and the evidence available on record would also clearly show that the deceased has committed suicide, on account of her own emotion, however, the case has been foisted agains