JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram (FTMC), Tirupur District in S.C.No.54 of 2012, dated 25.8.2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following manner:

2. The case of the prosecution is as hereunder :

(i) On 16.9.2007, the appellant (A1) married one Suganthi (since deceased). Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant. Suganthi was differently abled and this fact was known to the appellant even at the time of marriage. Three months after the marriage, the appellant and Suganthi started living at Ganapathipalayam.

(ii) The appellant and his parents caused cruelty to Suganthi by asking her to get dowry to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents. On 03.2.2010, the appellant forcibly sent Suganthi to her parents' house so as to bring the amount and the parents of Suganthi sought for some time to pay the amount.

(iii) It was alleged that the accused persons informed Suganthi that she could not come back to the matrimonial home without dowry and that they caused mental cruelty to Suganthi by pointing out to her physical disability.

(iv) The situation became worse and on 05.2.2010, Suganthi committed self immolation by pouring kerosene on herself at the matrimonial home. This incident was said to have taken place at about 11 PM in the night. Thereafter, Suganthi was taken to Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore and on 06.2.2010 at 9.30 AM, she was declared 'dead'.

(v) P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, gave the complaint (Ex.P.1) on 06.2.2010 at about 8 PM to the Inspector of Police - P.W.10, who registered the first information report (Ex.P.5) in Cr.No.2 of 2010 for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code). The express first information report reached the concerned Court at about 1.40 PM on 07.2.2010.

(vi) P.W.12, who is the Investigation Officer, was informed about the registration of the first information report.

(vii) The information was also sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.7) since the death of Suganthi had taken place under suspicious circumstances. P.W.7 went to the Government Hospital, conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report between 10 AM and 12 N on 07.2.2010. He recorded the statements of the appellant, his parents, parents and relatives of the deceased and panchayatdhars. Based on these statements, he gave a report to the effect that the death of Suganthi was not caused due to dowry harassment and that it required further investigation by the Police. The inquest report and the statements of the appellant, his parents, witnesses and panchayatdhars were marked as Ex.P.3 series.

(viii) P.W.12, who took up the investigation, went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.7) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.8) in the presence of P.W.4 and one Ramasubramaniam. The appellant was arrested on 09.2.2010 at about 7 PM and his confession was recorded in the presence of P.W.5. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody.

(ix) Thereafter, the Investigation Officer took steps to subject the deceased to post mortem and necessary requisition was given. The post mortem was conducted by both P.W.8 and P.W.11. The post mortem report was marked as Ex.P.4 through P.W.8, in which, the following ante-mortem injuries were noted in the body of the deceased Suganthi:

"Dermo epidermal infected injuries involving