JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and set aside the sentence and conviction imposed by the Hon'ble Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni in S.C.No.48 of 2011 dated 28.06.2017.)

“Man, when perfected, is best of animals, but when separated from the law and justice, he is worst of all - said Plato, an Athenian Philosopher

The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in S.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, stands convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC as follows:

Sl. No.	Conviction	Sentence
1.	Section 302 IPC	To undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of One Year.

Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated 24.09.2018, had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment and thereby, the Appellant is on bail now.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant / accused and the deceased are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 25.05.2009 and out of their marriage, they were blessed with a female child. It was alleged that on 20.07.2010 at about 05.30 p.m., when the accused was in his house, his wife / deceased insisted upon him to redeem her pledged jewels and annoyed by her repeated insistence, the accused had attacked on the left backside of the deceased with stick and thereafter, poured kerosene on the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital, wherein she succumbed to death due to sustenance of severe injury. Though a case was initially registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by the deceased herself before her death to P.W.14 (Special Sub Inspector of Police, Bodi, after the demise of the deceased, the case was altered into the one punishable under Section 302 IPC by way of an alteration report dated 27.07.2010.

3. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur in P.R.C.No.41 of 2010 and was subsequently, made over to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial after furnishing requisite documents to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the appellant / accused, has examined 20 witnesses, marked 16 documents and exhibited 7 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / accused that the dying declaration allegedly given by the deceased was a tutored one, as a cumulative reading of the depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3 discloses the fact that the dying declaration was not true and voluntary on the simple reason that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Secondly, P.Ws.1, 6 and 16 had merely stated that there was a fire, which got spread over the body of the deceased and nowhere, they had stated that the Appellant had set fire on the deceased and it was the deceased, who, in order to threaten the accused to commit suicide, had poured kerosene on her by way of self immolation, which is evident from the deposition of P.W.16. It was deposed by P.W.16 in her cross examination that prior to the death of her daughter-in-law, she had informed th