The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.R.Swaminathan, J.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.12.2021 made in S.C.No.73 of 2016 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur. By the impugned Judgment, the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 of IPC & 498 A of IPC. The sentence particulars are as follows:-

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

Kaleeswari/deceased was the wife of the appellant / accused. According to the defacto complainant/father of the deceased, the accused would often quarrel with the deceased for some reason or the other. He is said to have suspected her fidelity. Three months prior to the occurrence, the gold chain weighing four sovereigns went missing. The accused suspected that the deceased had given the chain to someone. He is even said to have assaulted her. On 25.08.2015, the child born to the accused and the deceased died. The accused once again suspected that the deceased was the cause for the child's death. On 22.09.2015 at around 2:00 pm, the accused assaulted the deceased, tied her legs with a cord, poured kerosene on her, set fire to her and caused her death. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint before the Alangulam Police Station at around 18:30 hours. Based on the same, Crime No.206 of 2015 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. P.W.18 then working as Circle Inspector took up the investigation. He went to the spot at about 19:30 hours. He prepared observation mahazer and rough sketch. He also collected the burnt ash and also the cord tied around the legs of the deceased in a burnt condition and few other articles from the spot. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 23.09.2015, he arranged inquest to be conducted. Ex-P11 is the inquest report. Postmortem was conducted at 11:00 am on 23.09.2015. The accused was arrested on 29.09.2015 at 7:45 am. His confession statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. Based on the disclosure statement, M.O.4-Key was seized. After examining the medical witnesses, the final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sattur. It was taken on file in P.R.C.No.2 of 2016. The case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur and made over to the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.73 of 2016. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 of IPC, 506(i) of IPC & 498(A) of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and one Balasubramanian was examined as D.W.2 to prove the defence of alibi. On the side of the defence, Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 were marked. M.O.1-black color kerosene can, M.O.2-rope, M.O. 3-match box, M.O.4-key were also marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court by the impugned Judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and submitted that the impugned Judgment has to be set aside. He strongly contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He also added that the prosecution witnesses had motive to depose falsely. The learned counsel also added that during the occurrence time, the accused was working elsewhere and this has been proved by examining D.W.2. The case of the appellant is that he had nothing to do with the occurrence. He would contend that his wife committed self immolation and died as a result and it is not a case o