Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 02.06.2026

Pronounced on : 04.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl. A. (MD)Nos.501 and 824 of 2024

Crl.A(MD) No.501/2024

1.Raman

2.Selvam .. Appellants/accused Nos.2&3

Vs.

The State through

The Inspector of Police,

Jeyamankalam Police Station,

Theni District

Crime No.219/2018 ..Respondent/Complainant

Crl.A(MD) No.824/2024

Malaichamy .. Appellant/accused No.1

Vs.

The State through

The Inspector of Police,

Jeyamankalam Police Station,

Theni District

Crime No.219/2018 ..Respondent/Complainant

1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,

against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 in S.C.No.105 of 2019 on

the file of the Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Theni.

For Appellants : Mr.Ayyanar Premkumar

For Respondent : Mr.T.Leninkumar

Counsel for State

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)

These criminal appeals have been filed by A1 to A3 against the

judgment of the Mahila Court (FTC), Theni, made in SC No.105/2019 dated

30.04.2024, wherein, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the

following manner:

Rank of the

accused

Offences for which

convicted (IPC)

Sentenced to undergo

A1 294(b) One month simple imprisonment

302 Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month

A2 and A3302 r/w 114 in the

alternative 302 r/w 34

Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

The above sentences were ordered run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband of the

deceased and A2 and A3 are the in-laws. A1 got married to the deceased

nine years prior to the incident and out of the wedlock, they had two

daughters and one son. A1 was a drunkard and he always suspected his wife

and used to physically subject her to cruelty. A2 and A3 also insulted the

deceased. On 04.12.2018 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased was sitting in

front of the house and A1 in a drunken state scolded her stating that 'to

whom you are talking and who is the person with whom she is talking'.

After abusing in filthy language, A1 is said to have beaten her and caught

hold of the tuft of hair and pulled the deceased inside the house. At that

point of time, A2 and A3 also instigated A1 and they also abused the

deceased in filthy language. A1 is said to have brought the stove and

poured kerosene from that stove on the deceased and set her ablaze. The

deceased sustained burn injuries and she was rushed to the Theni

Government Medical College and Hospital and admitted as inpatient. The

Medical Officer of the hospital made a requisition to the Judicial

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

Magistrate, Andipatti (Ex.P8) stating that the deceased has sustained 50%

burn injuries and the dying declaration must be recorded.

3. PW12, who was the Judicial Magistrate, received the information

on 04.12.2018 at about 11.15 p.m and the Magistrate went to the

Government Hospital at about 11.40 p.m. The learned Judicial Magistrate

ascertaining as to whether the deceased was in conscious state of mind to

give the dying declaration and gave a certificate to that effect (Ex.P7). The

dying declaration was recorded from 11.55 p.m. to 12.15 midnight. In the

dying declaration, the deceased had explained the manner in which the

incident had taken place and the involvement of the accused persons.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni

received the information from the Government Hospital and hence reached

the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased at

22.30 hrs., and registered the FIR in Crime No.219/2018 at 6.30 a.m., on

05.12.2018 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 307 IPC and

Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,

2002.

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

5. The investigation was taken over by PW13 and he went to the

scene of crime on 05.12.2018 at about 7.45 am. and prepared the

observation mahazar (Ex.P9) and rough sketch (Ex.P10) in the presence of

witnesses. Under Athatchi (Ex.P11), MO1, which is the kerosene stove was

seized.

6. PW13 went to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement

of the deceased. On the same day, at about 15.30 hrs., A1 was arrested and

he was produced before the concerned Court and was remanded to judicial

custody. He also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under

Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.

7. PW15 took over the investigation since PW13 went on leave and

he received the information from the hospital that the deceased died on

24.12.2018 and he prepared the alteration report (Ex.P13) and altered the

offence to Section 302 IPC. PW15 conducted the inquest in the presence of

the panchayatdars on 25.12.2018 at 8.00 a.m. and prepared the inquest

report (Ex.P12). The dead body was sent for postmortem and the

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

postmortem was conducted by PW11, who issued the postmortem report

marked as Ex.P4 and the following findings were recorded:

“Appearance found at the postmortem:

Moderately nourished body of a female. Finger and toe

nails pale. Singeing of scalp hair noted. Infected burns seen

head, face, front and back of the chest, upper part of

abdomen, both arms, front of both forearm and front of left

thigh. Pus materials coated over the burnt area. Base of

burnt area is red in colour.

Other findings:

Heart : Normal. Vessels – patent. Hyoid bone:intact.

Larynx and trachea: No soot particles present. Stomach

contains 20 ml of dark brown colour. No specific smell and

mucosa-congested. Small intestine:contains 10 m of dark

brown colour fluid. No specific smell and mucosa-congested.

Lungs: Liver, Spleen, Kidneys & Brain : Normal c/s

congested. Bladder:contains 5 ml of urine. Uterus: normal

c/s.empty. Viscera preserved for chemical analysis report.

8. The final opinion (Ex.P5) revealed that the deceased would have

died of complications of ante mortem burns.

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

9. PW13 once again took up the investigation and recorded the

statement of some of the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The clothes

recovered from the body of the deceased was sent for chemical analysis by

making a requisition to the Court.

10. PW13 was transferred and therefore the investigation was taken

over by PW14. He recorded the statements of the postmortem Doctor,

chemical analyst and collected the postmortem report, biological report and

serological report and on completion of investigation, filed the police report

before the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, which was taken on file in PRC

No.6/2019. After serving copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused

persons, the case was committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and was made

over to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Theni, which was

taken on file in SC No.105/2019.

11. The charges were framed against the accused persons in the

following manner:

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

S.No.Rank of the accused Offences under Sections (IPC)

1 A1 294(b) (2 counts)

2 323

3 302

4 A2 and A3 323

5 302 /w 114

The accused persons denied the charges when questioned.

12. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Exs.P1 to

P13 and also placed reliance upon MO1.

13. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the

accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of

Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.

14. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses nor mark any

documents.

15. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable

doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the

manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been

filed before this Court.

16. During the pendency of these appeals, it is brought to the notice

of this Court that A2 died on 26.02.2026 and this information was provided

by the trial Court to the Additional Registrar General of the Madras High

Court, Madurai Bench on 07.04.2026. Hence, the appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.

501 of 2024 stands abated insofar as A2 is concerned. Accordingly the

appeals were heard insofar as A1 and A3 are concerned.

17. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either

side and the materials available on record.

18. PW1 to PW6, who were examined on the side of the prosecution,

turned hostile and therefore, nothing substantial comes out of their

evidence. In view of the same, the only piece of evidence that has been

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

relied upon by the prosecution to substantiate the charges is the dying

declaration (Ex.P7) that was recorded from the deceased by PW12 and also

the medical evidence, which provided the cause of death of the deceased. It

is now too well settled that the conviction can be based solely upon the

dying declaration if it is found reliable and in which event, the Court need

not look for corroboration. Useful reference can be made to a judgment of

the Apex Court in Bapu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (2)

LW (Crl) 643 and also the judgment of this Court in Gurusamy v. the State

represented by the Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station, reported

in 2019 (2) LW (Crl) 556.

19. In the case in hand, as per Ex.P8, which was the requisition given

by the Medical Officer to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration, it is

seen that the deceased had sustained 50% burns. At the time of recording

the dying declaration, PW12 had ensured that the deceased was in a

conscious state of mind and oriented for giving dying declaration and it has

been certified under Ex.P7. The deceased has explained the incident stating

that she used to regularly have quarrel with her husband (A1) and on the

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

date of incident, on 04.12.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., there was a big fight

between the deceased and A1 and A1 is said to have abused the deceased in

filthy language and poured kerosene and set fire. She further states that A1

brought her outside the house and also poured water. Insofar as A2 and A3

are concerned, she states that they instigated A1. This dying declaration was

recorded from 11.55 p.m to 12.15 a.m., on 05.12.2018. PW12 in his

evidence has spoken about the recording of the dying declaration and the

fact that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and was oriented to give the

dying declaration.

20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased

while giving the statement to the investigating officer, had given a different

version as if after the incident, her brothers Selvam and Selvaraj covered her

with jute bag and foot mat and also poured water. It is submitted that this

fact was not stated when the dying declaration was recorded by PW12.

21. In the considered view of this Court, the statement given by the

deceased to the investigating officer is substantially the same as was stated

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

to PW12, who recorded the dying declaration. The minor discrepancy as to

what happened after the incident will not discredit the fact that A1 had

poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire after the fight between the

deceased and A1. In view of the same, this Court finds that the dying

declaration that was recorded by PW12 is wholly reliable and it is not

necessary for this Court to look for corroboration.

22. The deceased died after nearly 21 days, which resulted in the

alteration of the FIR for offence under Section 302 IPC.

23. On carefully going through the dying declaration as well as the

statement given by the deceased to the investigating officer, which was

recorded and reduced into an FIR, it is quite clear that there was a big fight

between A1 and the deceased and in the heat of passion, A1 seem to have

poured the kerosene and set the deceased on fire. This act on the part of A1

was not as a result of any premeditation and it happened in the spur of the

moment. Hence, this case can be brought within the exception I to Section

300 IPC and the act of A1 certainly amounts to culpable homicide not

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

amounting to murder since A1 had the knowledge that the injury is likely to

cause death. Therefore, the punishment can be awarded under Section

304(II) IPC. This Court takes into consideration the fact that there are two

daughters and one son for A1, who will have to be taken care and this is

considered as a mitigating factor while deciding the sentence.

24. Insofar as A2 is concerned, this Court has already recorded the

fact that the appeal has abated since A2 died during the pendency of the

appeal.

25. Insofar as A3 is concerned, she is the mother of A1 and mother-in-

law of the deceased. The allegation made against A3 is very sketchy and A3

cannot be convicted merely based on the dying declaration and it requires

some corroboration, which is absent in this case. Therefore, the benefit of

doubt must go in favour of A3 and the prosecution has not established the

charges as against A3.

26. In the light of the above discussions, the conviction and sentence

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

imposed on A3 is set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed on A1

is modified.

27. In the result,

(i) Crl.A(MD) No.501 of 2024 is allowed insofar as A3 is concerned

and A3 is acquitted of all the charges. She is set at liberty. Bail bond, if any

shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded.

(ii) As far as A2 is concerned, the appeal stands abated;

(iii) Insofar as Crl.A(MD) No.824 of 2024 is concerned, the same is

partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is

modified as follows:

(a) the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under

Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, the appellant is convicted under

Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month; and

(b) Insofar as offence under Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, the

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

conviction and sentence remain unaltered.

[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K, J.]

04.06.2026

NCC : Yes

Index : Yes/No

RR

To

1.The Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Theni.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Jeyamangalam Police Station,

Theni District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section officer (English Records)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.501 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

AND

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

RR

Judgment made in

Crl. A. (MD)Nos.501 and 824 of 2024

04.06.2026

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis