J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the husband of deceased Mageshwari. They got married in the year 2006 and had two female children by name Harini (3 years old) and Hasini (6 months old). On 30/10/2010, Mageshwari doused herself with kerosene and set fire to herself. Her 6 months old daughter Hasini, who was near her also caught in fire, both died.

2. Next day, on 31/10/2010, at about 2.00 p.m, Chandrapal, the father of the deceased informed the police about the incident. He alleged that, a month before the occurrence when he and his wife came to see their daughter, she complaint about her husband Srinivasan that, he is having illicit relationship with several women and not taking care of her and their children. He stay away from the home for several days. A month prior to the incident, they heard Srinivasan has set up a house for one Radha, daughter of Neelaperumal and living with her. When they reported about the behaviour of Srinivasan to his parents, they supported him and retarded saying, he as a male will marry 1000 ladies. Nobody should blame his conduct. When this matter was reported to Palladam Police, they called Srinivasan and warned him to desist from such behaviour. On 30/10/2010, at about 11.00 p.m, he received a call from her daughter's house informing that his daughter Mageshwari and grand daughter Hasini caught fire and died. 3. For the above said incident, First Information Report registered in Crime No.2360/2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam, took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at 17.00 hrs. He prepared the observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery mahazar in the presence of local witnesses. Since the unnatural death of Mageshwari occurred within 7 years of her marriage, enquiry by RDO was arranged. Her body was sent to post-mortem along with requisition letter. Therefore, F.I.R was altered from 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 306, 498-A and 302 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur and taken on file as P.R.C.No.13/2012. After furnishing copies to the accused, the final report copy and the documents relied by the prosecution, committed the case to Sessions Court for trial.

4. The case was taken on file by the District and Sessions Court as S.C.No.154/2013 and later, transferred to the Special Court for offence against Women, on its constitution at Tiruppur. The Mahila Court framed charge under Section 306 of I.P.C against the accused and put him on trial.

5. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 21 documents and one material object.

6. P.W-2 and P.W-3 are the father and mother of Mageshwari. P.W-4 is the brother of P.W-3, P.W-7 is the brother of the deceased Mageshwari. These witnesses had deposed about the demand of money and physical assault by the accused. The extra marital affair of the accused with one Vaishnavi and then, with Radha. P.W-2 had deposed that, he heard that, on the date of occurrence, when the accused was questioned by the deceased about his behaviour, he attacked her and told her that he will not change his behaviour. She may go to her father’s house or die, so that, he can live happily with Vaishnavi, his second wife. P.W-7 the brother of the Mageshwari had deposed that, when the accused kidnapped the minor girl Radha and kept her in his second wife's Vaishnavi house, Palladam Police rescued the said Radha, on the complaint of Radha's father. By this, the accused got furious and told his sister to die, then only he can live happily with her. He had also deposed about the call he received from his sister at about 8.00 p.m on

30/10/2010. According to P.W.7, his deceased sister told him the accused did not return home for 3 days and when he came after 3 days, she questioned him for staying away from home, for which the accused attacked her and scolded her.

7. Based on the evidence, the Trial Court, held the accused gu