BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 196, 209 of 2020
Decided On : 22-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 294(b), 109, 323, 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Marriage - Illicit Intimacy - Poured Kerosene And Set Fire – Murder Offence - Appeal Against Conviction - Deceased is wife of A1 - After marriage, A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2, which was questioned by deceased and there was a frequent quarrel between deceased and A1 - On date of occurrence there was a quarrel A1 beaten deceased, in main road, in front of his house, thereafter, he took her inside, poured kerosene and set fire on her - Held, Except dying declarations, there is no other corroborating material available on record, to support prosecution case - In said circumstances, the absence of any corroborating material, Court is of view that, it is unsafe, to rely upon inconsistent multiple dying declarations, to convict accused - Even in dying declarations, deceased has stated only A2 is having illicit intimacy with A1 and absolutely, there is no allegation that A2 has abetted A1, to commit offence - In such circumstances, in absence of any other material, to establish that A2 has intentionally abetted A1, to commit offence, she cannot be convicted, with aid of Section 109 IPC and so far as charge under Section 294 (b) also, there is no material available on record, to show that A2 has abused deceased - Considering all those circumstances, Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove charges, against accused, beyond any reasonable doubt and hence, appellants are entitled for acquittal - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
1. The appellants are A1 and A2 in S.C. No. 267 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur. A1 stood charged, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A2 stood charged, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 302 read with 109 IPC. The trial Court, convicted A1, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment and convicted A2, under Section 294 (b) and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. A2 was also convicted, for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Now, challenging the conviction and sentence, A1 filed Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 196 of 2020 and A2 filed Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 209 of 2020. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.