Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J Kanagaraj, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (three counts). Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case are (1) Rajathi, (2) Manjula and (3) Meghala, the daughters of the appellant/accused. P.W.1, Sarojini is the wife of the accused. Apart from these three children, the accused and P.W.1 had three other sons. The accused used to return home after consuming liquor and frequently there was a quarrel between PW1 and the accused. One month prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 took her three female children and went to her brother P.W5-Selvam's house. P.W.3, Somasundaram ,the son of P.W.1 went to P.W.5., Selvam's house and requested P.W.1 to come to their house, so that his father and himself could get good food. Accordingly, P.W.1 came back to her house along with her children. She was accompanied P.W.2, Sowdammal, the daughter of P.W.1's brother- Selvam P.W.5. 3.The fateful occurrence took place on 4.4.1998 during night hours. P.W.3, Somasundaram went for night shift. The three children Rajathi, Manjula and Meghala were sleeping inside. The accused was also sleeping along with the children. P.W.1 and P.W.2 Sowdammal were sleeping in the front portion of the house. The accused disturbed P.W.1, when she was sleeping and invited her for sexual intercourse. she declined saying that already she had three female children and she did not want any more child. In the meantime, P.W.2 got up. Getting irritated over this, the accused forcibly pushed P.Ws 1 and 2 out of the room and bolted the house from inside. He felt that 3 daughters were the hurdles for his conjugal relationship with his wife. Thereafter he took the kerosene can from the kitchen and he poured kerosene on his three children and set fire to them. The children in flames started crying. This was witnessed by P.Ws 1 and 2 and neighbours through window. One of the children, caught hold of her father,consequently the accused also sustained burn injuries in his right hand. Immediately, the accused opened the door and came out. Then the children were brought to the Government Hospital, Erode. The accused was also admitted in the same hospital on 5.4.1998 at 1.25 a.m. 4. P.W.9, the doctor examined all of them. One of the children, caught hold of her father,consequently the accused also sustained burn injuries in his right hand. Immediately, the accused opened the door and came out. Then the children were brought to the Government Hospital, Erode. The accused was also admitted in the same hospital on 5.4.1998 at 1.25 a.m. 4. P.W.9, the doctor examined all of them. In the meantime, P.W.1, the wife gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to Head Constable P.W.19 at Perunthurai Police Station. He prepared Ex.P.4 first information report in Ex.P.20 and sent the copy of the first information report to the Inspector of Police and other superior officers. 5. P.W.24, Palanichamy, Inspector of Police on receipt of the copy of the first information report on 5.4.98 at 9.30 a.m., took up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2, drew the sketch plan Ex.P.25 and recovered material objects 1 to 12 in Ex.P.3. He received the intimation that Rajathi died on 5.4.98 at 12.30 p.m. Thereafter he went to the Government Hospital, Erode and conducted inquest on the dead body of Rajathi (deceased-1) and prepared inquest report Ex.P.26. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 Sarojini, P.W.2 Soundammal, P.W.3 Somasundaram and P.W.5, Selvam. P.W.24 Inspector of Police sent the dead body of Rajathi for post mortem through P.W.20, Head Constable under Ex.P.14 requisition. He also sent P.W.1 Sarojini for medical treatment under Ex.P.12 requisition for whom wound certificate was given in Ex.P.13 by P.W.12. At that time, the other victims Manjula and Meghla and accused were inpatients. 6. P.W.13 , the Doctor conducted postmortem on the dead body of Rajathi on 5.4.1998 at 4.45 p.m. and noticed that the deceased had received 70 degree burns spread all over the body and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to extensive burns at 9.30 a.m. on 5.4.98 at Government Hospital Erode. Ex.P.15 is the postmortem certificate. 7. On 6.4.1998, P.W.24, arrested the accused at the Government Hospital, Erode. On 7.4.1998, he received the intimation of death of deceased-2 Manjula . He conducted the inquest on the dead body of deceased-2 Manjula and prepared the inquest report Ex.P27 and sent the dead body for postmortem under Ex.P.16. Ex.P.15 is the postmortem certificate. 7. On 6.4.1998, P.W.24, arrested the accused at the Government Hospital, Erode. On 7.4.1998, he received the intimation of death of deceased-2 Manjula . He conducted the inquest on the dead body of deceased-2 Manjula and prepared the inquest report Ex.P27 and sent the dead body for postmortem under Ex.P.16. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.14, Doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceaded-2 Manjula on 7.4.1998 at about 1.30 p.m. and noticed that the deceased had received extensive burns through out the body and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to extensive burn under Ex.P.17. On 1.5.98 at about 2.30 p.m., he received the intimation in Ex.P.9 about the death of deceased-3 Meghala. He conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased-3 Meghala and prepared the inquest report in Ex.P.28. He sent the dead body of deceased-3 Meghala for postmortem through requisition in Ex.P.18. 8. P.W.15 Doctor conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased-3 Meghala on 2.5.98 and noticed that the deceased had sustained varying degrees of burns and opined that the deceased appeared to have died of septicemea due to extensive burns in Ex.P.19. Then P.W.24, Inspector of Police made arrangements to send the material objects for chemical examination. After completion of enquiry, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC(3 counts). 9. The prosecution had examined 24 witnesses, filed 28 exhibits and produced 14 material objects. 10. During the course of questioning the accused, he stated that he did not pour kerosene on the body of the children and set fire to them, and that they sustained burn injuries only due to sudden fall of chimney lamp The trial court, however rejected the plea of the accused and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 3 counts. 11. Assailing the Judgment of conviction, Mr.S.E.Victor, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is so artificial and, there are materials to show accused only took the victims to the hospital, and as such, the conviction imposed upon the appellant is not legal. 12. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 13. We have gone through the records and also gave our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 14. 12. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 13. We have gone through the records and also gave our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 14. The two eye witnesses, are P.W.1 the wife of the accused and, P.W.2 P.W.1 's brother's daughter. According to P.W.1, there were frequent quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 . Since the accused invariably harassed P.W.1 in a drunken mood, P.W.1 along with her 3 female children went and stayed in her brother's house some time prior to the occurrence. P.W.3, the son of the accused went to P.W.5's house and requested his mother, P.W.1 to come and stay with him in their house, so that his father and himself could get good food. In pursuance of the request made by her son, P.W.1 came back along with her three children accompanied by P.W.2, Sowdammal, the daughter of P.W.5. 15. On the date of occurrence at 2 p.m., the accused asked P.W.3, Somasundaram, his son to get Rs.100/- from his employer. When he refused to get the money for him, there was a quarrel between them. Therefore, P.W.3 beat the accused with a stick and caused injury on his head. Thereafter, P.W.3 went for his job. During the night hours, after taking bed, the accused insisted P.W.1 to come for sexual intercourse. She refused saying that there are three daughters sleeping nearby. Getting angry over this and feeling that the daughters are a hurdle for his sexual activities, the accused forcibly pushed P.Ws 1 and 2 out of the room and bolted the house from inside and this he took kerosene can from the kitchen and poured the same on his three children and set fire to them and their children cried and the accused opened the door and came out. P.W.s 1 and 2 with the help of neighbours doused the fire with water. 16.The evidence of P.W.1 clearly corroborates the evidence of P.Ws .2 and 5. According to P.W.3, the son, his father accused used to consume alcohol and quarrell with him and with his mother P.W.1 and on the date of occurrence, P.W.3 attacked the accused and caused injury on his head. When the Doctor examined the accused, he not only found the burn injuries but also the injuries sustained on his head, which was caused by his son P.W.3. When the Doctor examined the accused, he not only found the burn injuries but also the injuries sustained on his head, which was caused by his son P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.2 also would clearly show that P.Ws.1 and 2 were pushed out of the house and then the accused opened the kerosene tin and poured the same on sleeping children and set fire on them. Though it is noticed from the Accident Register that the children were brought to the hospital and admitted by the accused, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly show that they only arranged the taxi and took the victims along with accused to the hospital. Therefore, merely because the accused also came along with them and got treatment for the burn injuries sustained by him, it cannot be stated that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased were only due to the accidental fall of the chimney lamp, especially when the doctors opined that there were extensive burns all over the body of the deceased. 17. Under those circumstances, we are unable to accept any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently it has to be held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.