The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the dying declaration and oral evidence to prove the accused's instigation and cruelty, leading to the finding of guilt for both charges under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CRPC, to set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed in S.C.113 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpet.)

On 26.04.2011, when P.W.18, Mr.Arokiaraj was on duty at Chunambedu Police Station, the statement recorded from the deceased victim Manjula in the hospital was brought, which was to the effect that the said Manjula had married the accused before ten years and they had two children. But, however the accused developed illicit intimacy with one Maragatham and on the day of occurrence, that is on 25.04.2011 at about 05.30 pm, she questioned her husband about his illicit intimacy and there was a fierce quarrel and she was sent out of the home. In order to placate her husband, she went out to the neighbor's house and after some time, when she again came back, the accused questioned her that why had she returned and asked her to get out. Enraged by that, she poured a little amount of kerosene on herself and tried to threaten her husband that she will commit suicide. Upon which, the husband told her that with little amount of kerosene she will not die and snatched the kerosene can and poured the rest of the kerosene on her and also gave a match box from his shirt pocket to her and goaded her to set herself on fire. Under these circumstances, she was forced to lit herself and sustained burn injuries and to that effect, the statement was given by her in the hospital.

2. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.187 of 2011 was registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation and immediately thereof, on 26.04.2011, steps were taken to record the statement of the victim as her condition is said to have worsened. Accordingly, a letter in Exhibit P.6 was addressed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhuranthagam to the learned Sessions Judge, pursuant to which the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chelgalpattu, who was later examined as P.W.13, was deputed for recording the dying declaration and after being duly certified by the doctors as being stable and is under fit state of mind to make a declaration, on 26.04.2011, the dying declaration of the victim was recorded and thereafter, the victim succumbed to burn injuries on 28.04.2011. Later, postmortem was conducted and the First Information Report in the case was altered and P.W.19 completed the investigation and laid the final report, proposing the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 498(A), 306 and 4(b) of the Harassment of Women Act.

3. The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Madhuranthagam, in PRC No.28 of 2013 and after appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies as per Section 207 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and was taken on file as SC.No.113 of 2015 and made over to Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. The Trial Court after consideration of the materials on record, framed charges under Sections 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and the appellant herein denied the charges and stood trial.

4. Thereafter, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined one Ramesh, brother of the victim as P.W.1, who spoke about the fact that his sister was married to the accused and there was cruelty to her. Prior to the occurrence on account of illicit relationship with one Maragatham and that he heard about the fact as to his sister setting herself on fire by pouring kerosene on herself. One Kanniyapan, another brother of the victim was examined as P.W.2, who also spoke on the same lines as that of the P.W.1. The prosecution examined one Lakshmi as P.W.3, who was the neighbor to the house of the victim and the accused, who however turned hostile. Similarly, one Murugesan was examined as P.W.4, who was also a neighbor and turned hostile. One Ettiyappan was examined as P.W.5, who was the witness to the observation mahazar. One Vinayagam, who was exa