Judgment : BELLIE, J. ( 1 ) THE accused Pappusamy who has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Sowriyammal the deceased in the case was the wife of the accused. They were married 12 years ago. They had two daughters and one son. After the marriage they were living in Melanettur with Sowriyammals father P. W. 3 Arokiam for three months. Thereafter the accused took-his wife to Kumizhanthal and there they lived. Three years after, the accused sent a telegram to P. W.-1 Arokiam asking him to take away his wife. Then Arokiam went and enquired about it and the deceased told him that the accused was in illicit intimacy with another girl and when she asked about that the accused beat her. Arokiam took his daughter to Paramakkudi and after giving her treatment there he took her to his village Kandanikkarai and there Sowriarnmal was living with her father. The father-in-law of Arokiam; who was living in Gunappendal saying that there is a vacancy for the post of teacher in Balavadi took Sowriammal there and there she was working as a teacher for about ten months. The accused was living with his children in Vannan Odai. The accused went to the deceased and told her that he would get her transferred to Keezhanettur and the deceased was transferred to that place and she was employed there as Balasevika in the Chief Ministers Nutritious Meals Scheme. Three months before the incident the accused went to the deceased and harmed her by beating. On 2-12-1983 at about 5. 30 P. M. , P. W. 7 Sonai who was returning from his field saw the accused getting down from a bus and going to Keezhanettur. In the night at about 2-30 A. M. P. W. 8 Mariyammal who was living in her house opposite to the house of Sowriammal happened to come out of her house for her child to pass urine and saw fire inside the house of Sowriammal and she cried aloud. Hearing that, P. W. 2 Silamban and one Subbaia who were living nearby went there and they found the door of Sowriammals house had been bolted from inside. The window remained open. Hearing that, P. W. 2 Silamban and one Subbaia who were living nearby went there and they found the door of Sowriammals house had been bolted from inside. The window remained open. When they looked through the window they saw the body of Sowriammal burning and the accused standing nearby. P. W. 2 Silamban immediately went to the house of P. W. 1 Santhanam who is Thaliyari of Keezhanettur and told him about the incident and both of them hurried to the occurrence place. P. W. 1 Santhanam and P. W. 2 Silamban and subbaia pushed the door with force as a result of which the bolt inside fell down and the door opened. When P. W. 1 Santhanam enquired Sowriammal as to what happened, she replied that her husband pouring kerosene on her set fire to her. When asked where was her husband she told him that he was hiding in the house. They found the accused hiding near a paddy heap there and Santhanam pulled him out. On questioning, the accused told them that his wife was not living with him for a very long time and he only had been taking care of the children and thinking that whether she lived or died it made no difference, he set fire to her. P. W. 1 went out and searched for a cart to take Sowriammal to hospital but nobody was prepared to give one. In the meanwhile P. W. 6 Natarajan who was running a tea shop in that village, hearing about the incident, with a Taperecorder M. O. 1 went to the house of Sowriammal and asking Sowriammal as to what happened he recorded in the tape recorder her statement At about 3. 00 A. M. Sowriammal died. Then P. W. 1 Santhanam, P. W. 2 Silamban and Subbaia with others took the accused to Elayankudi Police Station and reached there at 6. 00 A. M. P. W. 1 Santhanam, gave a statement to P. W. 13 Sub Inspector which the Sub Inspector reduced into writing and that is Ex. P1. The sub Inspector registered a case under Section 302 I. P. C. and sent the First. Information Report to Court He arrested the accused. On receipt of information of the incident P. W. 14 Inspector of Elayankudi proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at 7. P1. The sub Inspector registered a case under Section 302 I. P. C. and sent the First. Information Report to Court He arrested the accused. On receipt of information of the incident P. W. 14 Inspector of Elayankudi proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at 7. 30 A. M. He held inquest between 8. 30 and 11. 00 A. M. and recovered certain articles which appeared to him necessary for the case. Then he sent the body for postmortem. The Inspector recovered M. O,1 Taperecorder from P. W. 6 Natarajan. After receipt of the postmortem certificate and also the report from the Chemical Analyst regarding the articles recovered in connection with the case the Inspector filed charge sheet on 21-1-1984. ( 3 ) THE accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied that he ill-treated his wife and also denied that he pouring on her Kerosene set fire to her. He further stated that because of his love marriage with his wife his father-in-law was ill-disposed towards him, and he (accused) was taken from his house and a false case has been foisted against him. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence found that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore he convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. ( 5 ) IT is indisputable that the deceased had died due to bum injuries. That is clear from the evidence of the Postmortem Doctor P. W. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased alone was living in a house in Keezhanettur village. It is also not in dispute that P. W. 5 Mariammal and P. W. 2 Silamban were neighbours of the deceased. It is the evidence of P. W. 8 Mariammal that one year ago during night she brought her child outside her house for her child to pass urine. Then she heard cries from the house of Sowriammal and see also saw fire inside the house. She cried out. Hearing that her neighbours P. W. 2 Silamban and Subbaia came there. She then, frightened, went with her child to her relations house. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Silamban would state this on the date of incident while he was sleeping in his house, at about 2. She cried out. Hearing that her neighbours P. W. 2 Silamban and Subbaia came there. She then, frightened, went with her child to her relations house. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Silamban would state this on the date of incident while he was sleeping in his house, at about 2. 30 A. M. , he heard cries of Mariammal and he ran out and Subbaia also came there running. He saw Mariammal crying in front of the house of Sowriammal. They saw through the window Sowriammals body burning inside her house and she was bawling with pain and by her side her husband was standing. The further evidence of P. W. 2 Silamban is that he went to the house of Santhanam, the halaiyari, and brought him to the spot and they went inside the house and when Thalaiyari Santhanam enquired Sowriammal she said that her husband poured kerosene on her and set fire. He (P. W. 2) further stated that When Santhanam asked her as to where her husband was she said he was near the kitchen and Samhanam went there and brought him out and when Santhanam asked him why he did so the accused said that since his wife did not respect his words he burnt her. ( 7 ) THIS evidence of P. W. 2 has been corroborated by P. W. 1 Santhanam. He said P. W. 2 Silamban came to his house on 3-12-1983 at 2. 30 A. M. and told him about his seeing Sowriammal being burnt in her house and both of them went to the house of Sowriammal. He has further stated that the door of her house had been bolted from inside and it was forced opened and he saw Sowriammals body burnt and when he enquired her she told him that her husband poured Kerosene. On her and burnt her. He (P. W. 1 also said that when enquired about her husband she said he was inside the house and he saw the accused near a paddy heap and he pulled him from there and when he asked why he did so he said the children were living with him and she was refusing to come and live with him and therefore he did it. Then P. W. 1 said that he went out to search for a cart to take Sowriammal to hospital but none was prepared LO give one and he returned and in two-three minutes Sowriarnmal died. Then P. Ws. 1 and 2 have testified that in the morning both of them Look the accused to Elayankudi police station and reached there at 6. 00 A. M. and there P. W. 1 gave a report EX. P1 and the sub Inspector arrested the accused. ( 8 ) THIS evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is attacked on the ground that P. W. 2 Silamban without doing anything to put out the fire says that he went to the house of Thalaiyari whose house is 1-1/2 furlongs away and this is unnatural. We do not see any merit in this. The evidence is that the door of the house was bolted from inside and therefore it is understandable that P. W. 2 was notable to do anything to open the Door. Even otherwise when he saw Sowriammal being burnt inside the house and the accused standing by her side it is quite possible that he would not have dared to get inside thinking that some harm might be done to him. It is quite natural that he rushed to the Thalaiyari. 1-1/2 furlongs away is not a great distance and therefore P. W. 2 might have thought that he would bring the Thalaiyari immediately. It is further argued that P. W. 2 would admit that he has not shouted while he was going to Thalaiyaris house and he did not tell anybody about the incident on the way. This submission also is bereft of merit because it was dead of night and it is in evidence (See P. W. 1) that it was dark then and that being the case we do not think that anybody would, go shouting and he would have seen anybody on the way. Thus we do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 that they saw Sowriammal being burnt in her house and they forced open the door and they saw the accused also there. Thus we do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 that they saw Sowriammal being burnt in her house and they forced open the door and they saw the accused also there. ( 9 ) IT is then argued that it is highly improbable that the accused would have stayed there in the house if really it was he who had poured kerosene and set fire to Sowriammal and instead he would have run away. This argument is unacceptable to us. It is the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused wanted to do away his wife because she would not listen to him to come and live with him. As seen above it was midnight i. e. , 2. 30 A. M. and it was dark and therefore possibly the accused thought that there was no chance of anybody else knowing about his act and coming there, and also that if he left the house she might try to go out of she might cry and upon then somebody might come and save her. Considering the circumstances, the accused bolting the door from inside the staying there appears to be quite probable and there is nothing strange in it. ( 10 ) AS to why P. Ws. 1 and 2 should speak implicating the accused in as serious crime like murder if really the accused was not at all involved in it, there is no reason worth considering attributed at all. The defence theory appears to be that the villagers to save themselves from being accused of any crime because of the death due to burning they conspired and foisted a case against the accused. This theory is far fatched and most unbelievable. ( 11 ) BOTH P. Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that when P. W. 1 enquired Sowriammal as to what happened she said that her husband poured kerosene on her and then set fire to her. This is found mentioned in Ex. P1 report. This extra-judicial confession as spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also found in EX. P1 appears to us to be quite true. P. W. 1 has also stated that the accused too when asked told him that since his wife refused to come and live with him he burnt her. P1 report. This extra-judicial confession as spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also found in EX. P1 appears to us to be quite true. P. W. 1 has also stated that the accused too when asked told him that since his wife refused to come and live with him he burnt her. It is argued that P. W. 1 has not said so in EX. P1 and also to the police and P. W. 2 also has not stated so during the investigation. For this reason the trial Court also does not seem to believe this part. of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. But even eschewing this pan, the remaining part of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly proves that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to Sowriammal. We cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that since the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as regards the alleged confession statement of the accused is false the other part of the evidence also shall not be considered as true. The s-aid part of the evidence i. e. , the evidence relating to the alleged confession may be true or may not be true. It cannot be certainly said to be false. The only thing is it cannot be taken to be true. Therefore this argument of the learned counsel has no force. It is further argued that while it is the evidence of P. W. 1 that he took the accused with his hands tied to the police station the Sub Inspector has stated that he was not brought to the station by using force. This argument also is without force. May be P. W. 1 was taking the accused to the station by tying his hands and at some point of time he might have untied him before reaching the police station. This so called discrepancy is not at all material. As seen above P. W. 8 Mariyammal has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2 Silamban that on the date of the incident, on hearing her shouts, P. W. 2 and Subbaia came there. This so called discrepancy is not at all material. As seen above P. W. 8 Mariyammal has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2 Silamban that on the date of the incident, on hearing her shouts, P. W. 2 and Subbaia came there. ( 12 ) THEN there is the further evidence of P. W. 6 Natarajan, who had a tea shop there in the Village, that upon hearing that Sowriammal was being burnt, hi rushed to her house with a taperecorder there he enquired her as to what happened and he recorded her statement in the tape M. O. 1. This tape has been recovered by the Inspector P. W. 14 at 12. 00 Noon on 3-12-1983. It has been played in the Court and P. W. 3 Arokiam father of Sowriammal has identified the voice there as that of his daughter Sowriammal. Here too we find nothing improbable. It is not uncommon that people like P. W. 6 who own tea shops have with them taperecorders. On hearing about the incident it might have immediately occurred to him that if Sowriammal was able to speak anything that could be taperecorded and therefore he took his tape-recorder there. As regards him also there is nothing as to why he should give false evidence. It is argued that in his evidence he has stated that Sowriammal spoke two-three words and she said that her husband only set fire to her whereas M. O. 1 tape consists of many a number of words. The words in the tape have been extracted by the trial Court in its Judgment When that is read it would show that the crux of the entire statement is that her (sowriammals) husband had set fife to her. Therefore when P. W. 6 was asked in the Court one year after, he has stated only the gist of her statement Thus as the trial Court has stated this evidence of P. W. 6 also appears to be true and believable. ( 13 ) THEN a comment was made on the evidence of P. W. 4 postmortem Doctor who has stated, I cannot definitely say whether death occurred before the body was burnt or after death;. But this sentence itself if un-intelligible and we do not think that this would in any way help the defence. As we have stated above the evidence of P. Ws. But this sentence itself if un-intelligible and we do not think that this would in any way help the defence. As we have stated above the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and clearly establishes the guilt of the accused and added to that there is the evidence of P. W. 6 who has taperecorded the statement of the deceased. ( 14 ) THUS we are quite satisfied with the finding of the Trial Court that the accused is guilty of the charge of murder. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.