G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad in S. C. No. 7 of 2002 convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife at his house by pouring kerosene and setting fire at about 8. 30 p. m. on 9-7-2001. ( 2 ) THE appellant was the sole appellant. A charge was framed against him under section 302 IPC. He denied the charge and claimed for trial. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows. ( 3 ) THE deceased was the wife of the appellant. They had four children during the wedlock. The eldest daughter was married. Two sons were studying while staying in the hostel. The youngest daughter Nirmala was staying with the deceased as on the date of offence. The appellant and the deceased used to live by doing coolie work. They and their daughter were residing as tenants in one of the portions of the house of one gaddam Krishnaiah. They used to quarrel frequently. On 9-7-2001 at about 8 p. m. P. W. 2 Swaroopa a tenant of one of the portions of the house in which the appellant and the deceased were residing, observed smoke emanating from the portion of the appellant. She came out and saw the appellant standing in front of his portion. When she raised cries alerting about the smoke, the appellant ran away. P. W. 3 smt. Janamma, another tenant residing in one of the portions of Gaddam Krishnaiah, also saw the flames from the portion of the appellant. By the time she came out from her portion, the appellant was running away and the deceased was in flames. Neighbours gathered at the house of the appellant and extinguished the flames. But the deceased died due to burns. P. W. 1, one of the tenants, who returned to the house at about 9 p. m. found the deceased lying dead with burns. He present Ex. P-1 complaint to the police concerned. The police took up the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P. Ws. 1 to11, marked Exs. P-1 to P-14 and M. Os. 1 to 7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The police took up the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P. Ws. 1 to11, marked Exs. P-1 to P-14 and M. Os. 1 to 7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The Metropolitan Sessions judge after considering the evidence placed by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R. 1. for six months. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the Metropolitan Sessions judge dated 24-5-2002 preferred the present appeal challenging the validity and legality of the conviction and the sentences imposed against him. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is: whetherthe material available on record warrants interference by this Court and whether the judgment of the metropolitan Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside? point: ( 6 ) THE allegation against the appellant was that on 9-7-2001 he poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her leading to her death. The appellant denied the offence and pleaded that he was not responsible for setting fire to his wife. ( 7 ) THIS is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, it has to be examined whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to prove the circumstances leading to a conclusion that the appellant was responsible for commission of the offence and it was consistent with the hypothesis leading to the establishment of the guilt of the appellant. The legal position in this regard is very clear. In Jawaharalal v. State of Orissa the Supreme court held that the prosecution must satisfy three conditions in order to sustain conviction or circumstantial evidence viz. The legal position in this regard is very clear. In Jawaharalal v. State of Orissa the Supreme court held that the prosecution must satisfy three conditions in order to sustain conviction or circumstantial evidence viz. , (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be a definite tendency unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, and (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion and in all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none-else and it should also be incapable of explanation by any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. ( 8 ) IN the light of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be appropriate to scan the evidence placed by the prosecution regarding the circumstances leading to the homicidal death of the deceased and the complicity of the appellant. ( 9 ) EX. P-1-complamt was given by p. W. 1, a tenant of one of the portions of the house in which the appellant and the deceased were living. In Ex. P-1, the earliest report, P. W. 1 mentioned that on 9-7-2001 when he returned to his house at about 9 p. m. he came to know through neighbours that at about 8. 30 p. m. the appellant set fire to his wife by pouring kerosene due to family disputes as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the burns on the spot. The appellant went away from the scene and the neighbours witnessed the incident. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 in his evidence before the court stated that he was residing in the house of one Gaddam Krishnaiah has a tenant. The house comprises eight portions and he is living in one of those portions by working as a regular mazdoor in Telephones department. He knows the appellant and his wife Venkatamma, who was residing in one of the portions of the house since two years prior to the date of incident. The appellant and the deceased were coolies. There used to be quarrels between them. On 9-7-2001 at about 9 p. m. he returned from duty and found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries in the portion of the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were coolies. There used to be quarrels between them. On 9-7-2001 at about 9 p. m. he returned from duty and found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries in the portion of the appellant. Several people gathered at the scene of offence and he did not see the appellant at the house. He went to the police station and presented Ex. P-1 report for necessary action. In the cross- examination he stated that his portion intervened with three portions from the portion of the appellant. On one side of the portion of the appellant, the owner resides and on the other portion one Dhanaraj resided. ( 11 ) P. W. 2, Swaroopa, deposed that she and her husband were residing in one of the portions of the house. The appellant and the deceased were also residing in one of the portions. There used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased. On the date of incident at about 4 p. m. , she returned from her parents house. At about 8 p. m. when she was cleaning rice, she observed smoke emanating from the portion of the deceased. She came out from her portion and saw the appellant standing in front of his portion. She raised cries and thereupon the appellant ran away. As on the date of the incident she was pregnant and on seeing the flames she became unconscious. By the time she regained consciousness, she was in her parent s house. Subsequently, she came to know that the deceased died due to burns. In the cross-examination she stated that one portion intervened between her portion and the portion of the appellant. She denied a suggestion that she was speaking falsehood being tutored by the police. ( 12 ) P. W. 3, a tenant of one of the portions of the house deposed that there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased on account of late coming of the deceased. On the date of offence also the was a quarrej between the appellant and the deceased at about 7 p. m. At about 7. 15 p. m. she noticed flames from the portion of the appellant. By the time she came out from her portion, she saw the appellant running away and the deceased in flames. On the date of offence also the was a quarrej between the appellant and the deceased at about 7 p. m. At about 7. 15 p. m. she noticed flames from the portion of the appellant. By the time she came out from her portion, she saw the appellant running away and the deceased in flames. The neighbours came and extinguished the flames, but the deceased died due to burns in the house itself. She further stated that at the time of the incident, the daughter of the deceased by name Nirmala went for tuition and was not at the house. In the cross-examination she stated that the deceased told her that the appellant was suspecting her character. By the time she came out from her portion on seeing the flames, the doors of the portion of the house of the appellant were found open. She denied a suggestion that she did not see the appellant on the date of incident at his portion or that there were no quarrels between the appellant and the deceased and she was speaking falsehood being tutored by the police. ( 13 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 indicates that the deceased died due to burns at about 8 or 8. 30 p. m. on 9-7-2001 at her house. ( 14 ) P. W. 9, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries on the deceased: (1) Ante-mortem dermo-epidermal burns about 98% all over the body, except part of head. (2) Anti-mortem scalp contusion 6x3 cms. over the right fronto parietal areas anterior posterior direction red in colour after reflection of scalp. He further stated that all visceral organs are congested. The cause of death was due to burns and the time of death might be 12 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination held at about 1. 45 p. m. on 10-7-2001. ( 15 ) THE evidence of P. W. 9 is corroborating with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the cause of death of the deceased i. e. the death was due to burns. ( 16 ) EX. P-3- rough sketch indicates that the scene of offence is a closed room like all other rooms. All the rooms were having only one door opening towards the open placed leading to the main gate. 1 to 3 regarding the cause of death of the deceased i. e. the death was due to burns. ( 16 ) EX. P-3- rough sketch indicates that the scene of offence is a closed room like all other rooms. All the rooms were having only one door opening towards the open placed leading to the main gate. The room of the deceased was measuring 10 x 8 ft. and it was stained with black smoke. During the course of observation of the scene of offence, broken bangle pieces, burnt match stick, burnt plastic kerosene tin were found lying at the scene. P. W. 5, a panch for the observation of the scene of offence deposed that on 10-7-2001 the police observed the scene of offence in his presence and seized the broken bangles, burnt match box burnt match stick, plastic kerosene can blue colour burnt saree etc. According to him, the entire room was soaked with smoke. P. W. 11, the investigating officer also stated the particulars regarding the scene of offence and the material objects seized from the scene. The location of the portion of the appellant, the presence of the material objects at the scene, the soaking of the room with smoke etc. , are the strong circumstances to show that the offence took place in the portion of the appellant in the manner narrated by the prosecution witnesses. ( 17 ) IN Ex. P-4- inquest report the inquest panchas opined that the deceased died due to burns. Ex. P-5 is the confession made by the appellant and it led to recovery of M. O. 7 - stick at the instance of the appellant under ex. P-6 - seizure panchanama. ( 18 ) P. W. 4, the owner of a lorry and resident of Ziaguda, Hyderabad deposed that the appellant used to work under him as hamali and used to drink off and on. He used to attend work for 10 days in a month. On 10-7-2001 at about 5 a. m. the appellant telephoned to him and enquired about his wife. The appellant told him that he beat his wife and he wanted to know how his wife was. He went to the house of the appellant and came to know through neighbours that the appellant poured kerosene and set fire to her resulting in her death. The appellant told him that he beat his wife and he wanted to know how his wife was. He went to the house of the appellant and came to know through neighbours that the appellant poured kerosene and set fire to her resulting in her death. He denied a suggestion that the appellant did not contact him by phone and he is speaking falsehood being tutored by the police. ( 19 ) THE appellant and the deceased lived in one of the eight portions of the house. The doors of all the portions were facing towards the open place leading to the main gate. Therefore, if anybody comes out from any of the portions of the house, such person will be visible to others. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the tenants residing in the other portions of the house. They are housewives. They came out of their rooms on seeing the smoke from the portion of the appellant. P. W. 2 found the appellant standing in front of his room and when she raised cries, he ran away from that place. P. W. 3 also stated that when she came out from her room, she found the appellant running away and the deceased in flames. After gathering of all the other people the fire was extinguished. But, the deceased died due to burns. P Ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses and there was no necessity for them to speak falsehood implicating the appellant in this crime. No enmity was attributed to both of them except suggesting that the police tutored them. Their testimony remained unshaken. Had the deceased got fire accidentally or set fire by herself, the appellant who was present at the scene of offence would have tried to extinguish the fire. He would have drawn the attention of the other tenants by raising cries and would have tried his best to save the deceased. But, none of the witnesses stated about his presence at the scene of offence immediately after the occurrence and about his efforts to save the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence of P. W. 4 was to the effect that the appellant telephoned to him on the next day morning from Shamshabad and ascertained about the deceased. But, none of the witnesses stated about his presence at the scene of offence immediately after the occurrence and about his efforts to save the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence of P. W. 4 was to the effect that the appellant telephoned to him on the next day morning from Shamshabad and ascertained about the deceased. This evidence of P. W. 4 is also a circumstance lending support to the prosecution version that he ran away from the house immediately after setting fire to his wife. ( 20 ) THE scene of offence is not an open place and as it was a room with one door, there was no scope for anybody else to commit the offence. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 established that the appellant and the deceased were frequently quarreling and the appellant was suspecting the character of the deceased. This can be a strong motive for the appellant to set fire to the deceased. ( 21 ) EXCEPT denying the offence, the appellant did not come forward with any further defence to suggest create any doubt in the mind of the Court that the death of the deceased might have occurred in a different manner than the manner narrated by the prosecution. The material objects seized from the scene of offence were also lending support to the story of the prosecution that the appellant was responsible for commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material came to the conclusion thatthecircumstances placed by the prosecution are strong enough to draw the conclusion that the appellant alone was responsible for commission of the offence. After carefully going through the material available on record and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, we are convinced that the material placed by the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant are liable to be confirmed. ( 22 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Sessions Court dated 24-5-2002 in S. C. No. 7 of 2002 is confirmed in all respects.