The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible dying declaration and corroborative evidence, despite a key witness turning hostile.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the husband of the deceased Prema Sundari. The trial court convicted the appellant for offences under section 498 A IPC and 302 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment respectively of these offences.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant and the deceased viz., Prema Sundari got married about 18 years prior to the incident. They had two male children. The appellant became a drunkard and was dependant on his wife. The deceased was trying to meet the needs by engaging herself in the activities of women self help group. She used to borrow money from one Gnanasigamani, a money lender. She later became intimate to him. This caused fissure in the life of the appellant and the deceased. They got separated. The elder son was with the appellant. The younger son was with the deceased. Few days prior to the incident, the fight between them got worse. The deceased gave a written complaint against her husband that he is threatening her with weapon and also demanding Rs.2 lakhs to buy cow. The police enquired the complaint and later, on the undertaking given by the appellant that he will not disturb, the deceased and will work out his remedy by filing divorce petition, the complaint of the deceased was closed. Two days later, the appellant went to the house of the deceased at late hours and got into the house under the pretest of having talk with his wife regarding the divorce proceedings. After gaining entry, the appellant abused her for having intimacy with Gnansigamani, threatened her to kill and in the fit of anger poured the kerosene kept in the cool drinks bottle and lite her alive

3. This was witnessed by the second son. The deceased tried to put the fire by herself. Her younger son, after informing the incident to the maternal grand mother over phone, took her to the hospital. At the hospital, the police came and recorded the complaint from the Prema Sundari. Later, on the same night her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. However, on 14.06.2016, she died due to 60% homicidal burn.

4. Based on the complaint given by Pema Sundari, the victim of the crime, stating that she was set fire by her husband Udayakumar, the Respondent Police registered the FIR in Crime No:378 of 2016 on 01.06.2016 against Udayakumar the appellant under sections 498 A, 294B and 307IPC. After, the complainant Prema Sundari died in the hospital on 14.06.2016 at about 17:15 hours, the case was altered to 294B, 498A and 302 IPC. Even before the alteration of the sections, the statement of the victim was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. After her death, the statement of her younger son, Muthuraman @ Balu was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No: II, Virudhunagar, as per Section 164(v) of Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. The trial Court framed charges under sections 498A and 302IPC. The prosecution has examined 22 witnesses marked 25 exhibits and four Material Objects. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.

6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond doubt. Further, held that, through the complaint- Ex.P-1 given by the diseased, Ex.P-17-the dying declaration recorded in the presence of the doctor by the Judicial Magistrate, Ex.P-9-the Accident register maintained in the hospital and the previous statement of PW-1 to the Judicial Magistrate marked as Ex.P-23 along with the deposition of PW.4-the mother of the victim corroborates each other and goes to prove the fact that the accused went to the house of the deceased and set her to fire after pouring kerosene on her. The death caused due to systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to 60% homicidal burns.

7. The trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo two years Rigrous Imprisonment with fine