1. This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 03.09.2009, made in SC.No.497 of 2007, by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, convicting and sentencing the Appellant, for the offence under Section 417 of IPC, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that a love affair prevailed between the Appellant/accused and the deceased, Devi for six months, before the date of occurrence and that the Appellant/accused, on a false promise to marry the deceased, induced her and had sexual intercourse, due to which, the deceased became pregnant and that on 07.09.2007 and 08.09.2007, when the deceased demanded the Appellant/accused to marry her, the Appellant/accused refused to marry her and being dejected by such refusal, the deceased committed suicide on 08.09.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. at her residence, by self immolating herself and later, she succumbed to burn injuries on 12.09.2007 at 10.00 a.m. in the Hospital. Hence, the Appellant/ accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

3. The Committal Court, after complying with the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.PC and having found that the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, had committed it to the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai and the Court had taken the case in SC.No.497 of 2007 and made over the case to the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on perusal of the materials and after hearing the accused, had framed charges for the offences under Sections 417 and 306 of IPC. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.16 and also marked Exs.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 5.

4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the oral and material evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, a resident of the area, was examined as DW.1 and no document was marked.

5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, particularly relying on the dying declaration, Ex.P7, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 as to the cause of the suicide, the evidence of PW.3, 4 and 5 as to the love affair between the accused and the deceased and the medical evidence, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, would submit that a case of death due to accidental fire had been falsely projected as a case of suicide and that the Appellant/ accused was wrongly prosecuted for having abetted the suicide by cheating her. He would, by pointing out to the following infirmities, inconsistencies and discrepancies, found in the case of the Prosecution, assail the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence:-

a. There are material inconsistencies between Ex.P7, dying declaration and the earlier statements of the deceased and her father, PW.1. On the statement of the father, Ex.P1, a First Information Report was registered in Cr.No.1171 of 2007 (Ex.P12) for accidental fire and the versions deposed by the deceased to PW.1 and PW.2, who are the parent of the deceased and PW.11 and PW.14, Doctors and in Ex.P8 and Ex.P11, accident re