Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. All the appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C., 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 4-A(1)(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998 r/w 34 I.P.C. After the trial, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He also convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 4-A(1)(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three years. He also convicted A1 to undergo three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. He directed that substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently as against A1. In respect of other charges, the learned Judge has acquitted A1. In so far as A2 and A3, the learned Judge had convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. In respect of other charges, the learned Judge had acquitted A2 and A3. 2. Questioning the above judgment, A1 has filed Crl.A.No.1050 of 2006 and A2 and A3 have filed Crl.A.No.843 of 2006. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: .(a) A1 Karuppiah is the son of A2 Manoharan and A3 Kamalam. A1 got married to one Malathi (the deceased in the case), the daughter of Karuthakannan and Vellathai -P.Ws.9 and 15 respectively, on 22. 2001 at Vasanthamahal Thirumana Mandapam in Vathalagundu. At the time of marriage, on the bridegroom side dowry was demanded and 50 sovereigns of gold jewels were given in addition to 3 sovereigns of gold chain, two sovereigns of hand chain and half a sovereign of ring and a cash of Rs.50,000/-apart from certain house hold articles. Even on the date of marriage, A2 and A3 demanded payment of Rs.50,000/-and 25 sovereigns more jewels and unless and until the above is paid, they will not allow both A1 and the deceased Malathi to live together. Even on the date of marriage, A2 and A3 demanded payment of Rs.50,000/-and 25 sovereigns more jewels and unless and until the above is paid, they will not allow both A1 and the deceased Malathi to live together. Out of the above dowry harassment, ultimately both A1 and the deceased had to live separately at Cuddalore. .(b) On 12. 2003, A1 took the deceased Malathi from her parents place and settled at a house in Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore. There was a quarrel between both the husband and wife viz., A1 and the deceased from the evening of 12. 2003, which continued till 4.30 a.m. on 12. 2003, when A1 is said to have murdered the deceased. .(c) After the commission of the crime, A1 surrendered before Kalaimani - P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and gave a confession (Ex.P.1) which was reduced into writing. On receipt of the said extra judicial confession, P.W.1 took A1 to the Thirupathiripuliyur Police Station where the F.I.R. was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police - P.W.24 in Cr.No.1587/2003 under Section 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, he informed the Inspector of Police concerned viz., P.W.26 and later on the investigation was taken up by P.W.28. .(d) P.W.28 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.22-observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.19 and another. He also prepared two rough sketches Exs.P.54 and 55. He had caused photographs of the scene of occurrence through P.W.23 and the photographs were marked as M.Os.2, 4 and 13 series. He also sent telegram to P.W.22, Scientific Officer, Mobile Forensic Science Laboratory, Villupuram. Thereafter, he held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatdars and prepared inquest report Ex.P.56. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also examined A1 and recorded his confession statement in the presence of P.W.19 and one Ramalingam under Ex.P.23. In the presence of the same witnesses, he had recovered M.Os.3 and 6 to 12 under Ex.P.24 Mahazar and also M.O.1-knife produced by A1 under Ex.P.25, pursuant to his confession. He sent the case properties recovered under Form 95 to the Court and requested under Ex.P.29 to send the same for chemical examination. On the advice of P.W.22, he had also taken the foot prints of A1 (M.Os.13 and 14) and requested the Court under Ex.P.33 to send for examination. He sent the case properties recovered under Form 95 to the Court and requested under Ex.P.29 to send the same for chemical examination. On the advice of P.W.22, he had also taken the foot prints of A1 (M.Os.13 and 14) and requested the Court under Ex.P.33 to send for examination. Thereafter, he examined P.Ws.9 and 15, whose statements revealed to the effect that it is a dowry death and therefore, he altered the case one under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. from 302 I.P.C. as the death had occurred within a period of two years from the date of marriage and gave requisition Ex.P.37 to conduct enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.25) and his inquest report and observation mahazar are marked as Exs.P.38 and P.39 respectively. P.W.28 sent the body along with a requisition-Ex.P6 given by P.W.25 through Head Constable Selvaraj for post mortem. .(e) On receipt of the requisition, the doctors P.W.10 and P.W.11 who constituted the team conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Malathi on 12. 2003 and found the following injuries: .(1) Left side scalp there is an incised injury extending from the forehead to middle line of scalp about 9-10 x 1-4 cm. X bone depth. .(2) There is an incised wound mid line of scalp about 10 x 2 cm x bone depth. .(3) There is an incised wound right side forehead near the hair line about 6 x 3 x 2 cm. .(4) There is an incised wound just below the left eye 7 x 2 cm x bone depth. .(5) There are two incised wounds placed on lower jaw eloquently placed 6 x 1 cm up to bone depth other one 4 x 1 cm x bone depth. .(6) There is 3 x 1 x b one depth below the 5th injury. .(7) There is incised wound from the ankle of the mouth obliquely placed 5 x 1 cm upto muscle. .(8) Missing of the lower jaw teeth left incised and canine. 9. Fracture left side of mandible. 10. Deep incised lacerated wound, right side of the neck extending from 4 cm away from the occipital prominence upto middle of the neck, obliquely placed 10 x 1 x 3 cm x upto muscle depth. 11. Middle of the neck incised wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle depth. 12. Abrasion over left side of the neck 2 x 1 cm. 13. 11. Middle of the neck incised wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle depth. 12. Abrasion over left side of the neck 2 x 1 cm. 13. Incised wound right index finger, obliquely placed 3 x 2 x upto bone depth. Fracture of bone of Phalanx. 14. Incised wound on the dorsum of right hand 4 x 2 x 1 cm. 15. There is lacerated injury on the (n.c.) about 3 x 1 x 1 cm left. 16. Dorsum of left hand about 3 x 2 x 1 cm incised wound. 17. There is incised wound varying in size left shoulder 4 to 6 cm x 1 x 1 cm. 18. Incised wound left forearm 4 x 2 x 1 cm. 19. There is incised wound left shoulder 6 x 1 x 1 cm. 20. Abrasion over right knee 4 x 2 cm. The doctors analysing the effect of injuries were of the opinion that the deceased would have died of multiple injuries with head injury due to haemorrhage and shock, as incorporated in Ex.P7 - postmortem certificate. .(f) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.25 examined A1, P.Ws.9, 15, 16, 17, one Rajendran, Chidambaram, Vellaiyan, Broker Ramamoorthy, Arumugam, P.W.18, Natrayan, A2 and A3, P.W.26, one Gandhi, P.W.27 and P.W.28 and recorded their statements in Exs.P.40, 5, 18, 19, 20, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 21, 46 to 52 respectively and submitted his report-Ex.P.53 stating that the case involved dowry harassment. Thereafter, the further investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.29. .(g) During the course of the investigation, P.W.29 prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.22. He examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statements then and there. He prepared alteration report Ex.P.57, altering the case from 174(3) Cr.P.C. to one under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and filed charge sheet against all the three accused showing A2 and A3 as absconding accused. 4. To bring home the case of the prosecution, as many as 29 witnesses were examined and 57 exhibits were marked in addition to 15 material objects produced on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied each and every materials put against them and consequently pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied each and every materials put against them and consequently pleaded not guilty. However, on consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had found guilty and convicted the accused appellants as stated earlier. 6. Heard Mr. Rajasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr.P.Kumaresan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. .7. Insofar as the appellant in Crl.A.No.1050/2006 viz., A1 is concerned, the learned counsel, Mr. Rajasekaran would submit that the learned Sessions Judge had heavily relied upon the extra judicial confession given by A1 to P.W.1 for holding the accused guilty and consequently imposing the punishment. He would submit that P.Ws.6 and 7 have also deposed for having seen the accused at about 10.00 a.m. wandering on the street with the child and therefore, going by the contents of Ex.P.1, extra judicial confession, it cannot be held that there was intention on the part of A1 to commit the murder of the deceased. He would draw our attention to Ex.P1 extra judicial confession which was treated as a complaint and submitted that the accused was not armed with knife at the time of occurrence and only when the deceased caused injury on accused with the pen knife, all of a sudden, he got angry and picked up the knife which was lying nearby and attacked the deceased. In the absence of any intention for homicidal violence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. In so far as the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4-A(1)(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to bring home the said charge. He would also submit that the entire occurrence had taken place not due to the dowry harassment, but due to the fact that the deceased wife of A1 had a suspicion that the accused was having illicit intimacy with some lady to which she objected, which resulted in frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. He would also submit that the entire occurrence had taken place not due to the dowry harassment, but due to the fact that the deceased wife of A1 had a suspicion that the accused was having illicit intimacy with some lady to which she objected, which resulted in frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. The motive aspect is not established by the prosecution and for all these reasons, the learned counsel would submit that the conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as 4-A(1)(2(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act should be set aside and a lesser punishment should be considered if at all the arguments on the merits as made above are not accepted by the Court. 8. Insofar as Crl.A.No.843 of 2006 preferred by A2 and A3, the learned counsel submitted that the only evidence available for dowry harassment is the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 15, the father and mother of the deceased and the harassment of demand of dowry was spoken to by these witnesses in respect of the occurrence that had taken place immediately after the marriage i.e. on 22. 2001. Inasmuch as the occurrence had taken place after a period of nearly three years of the marriage, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that A2 and A3 have committed the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. for dowry harassment and consequently, the conviction and sentence is totally unsustainable in law. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Kumaresan would submit that going by the extra judicial confession, it is seen that the accused had inflicted as many as 20 injuries and the fact that A1 had inflicted that much of injuries would by itself show the intention of committing murder. He would further submit that there was a quarrel between the husband and wife during the night on the date of occurrence. But merely because the wife had inflicted minor injuries with the pen knife, A1 had exceeded his defence by inflicting as many as 20 injuries to which the deceased succumbed. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 do not require any interference. But merely because the wife had inflicted minor injuries with the pen knife, A1 had exceeded his defence by inflicting as many as 20 injuries to which the deceased succumbed. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 do not require any interference. Insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the entire occurrence had emanated only due to the demand of dowry by both A2 and A3 that too from the date of marriage itself. The said fact is spoken to by both P.Ws.9 and 15. Therefore, the conviction and sentence require no interference. .10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. As far as the submissions with regard to A1 is concerned, the occurrence had taken place at 4.30 a.m. on 12. 2003. After the occurrence, A1 was seen loitering in the streets with the child in a restless manner by P.W.5. It is not disputed that A1 had gone to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1 and gave extra judicial confession Ex.P.1 at 10.00 a.m. In the extra judicial confession, he has narrated the entire facts from the date of marriage till the occurrence. He has admitted for having committed the murder of his wife. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the extra judicial confession, it is seen that both A1 and the deceased had good times during the night on the date of occurrence, but the quarrel had started only when the deceased started questioning the accused with regard to his illicit intimacy with some other girl. In the quarrel, the deceased had picked up the pen knife and had assaulted A1 as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.12 and the wound certificate Ex.P.10, wherein the accused has stated that the injury sustained by him was caused by his wife. Only in view of the sudden attack of the deceased, the accused had picked up a knife and attacked the deceased. In our opinion, the submission as to the lesser punishment on the ground that there was no intention to cause death cannot be accepted. The Court must keep in mind that the occurrence had taken place inside the house where both A1 and the deceased were alone present apart from their child aged about one year. In our opinion, the submission as to the lesser punishment on the ground that there was no intention to cause death cannot be accepted. The Court must keep in mind that the occurrence had taken place inside the house where both A1 and the deceased were alone present apart from their child aged about one year. Though there was a quarrel between the husband and wife, it appears that in the course of the quarrel, the deceased had picked up the pen knife and inflicted minor injury on the accused. The accused got angry in view of the above and had inflicted 20 injuries with the knife, which was found lying nearby. .11. When an occurrence had taken place inside the house and the assailant being the husband and the victim being the wife, supported by no other person and was in a helpless state of affairs, causing as many as 20 injuries, cannot be considered to be one made without any intention to cause murder. The surrounding circumstances have to be necessarily taken into consideration to decide as to the mental state of mind of the accused to commit the offence. As we have pointed out, the occurrence had taken place in the early morning on 12. 2003, inside the house where both A1 and the deceased alone were present. The act of causing as many as 20 injuries, by no stretch of imagination, could be construed as a retaliation for the simple injury caused by the deceased to A1 and the intention could be culled out from the surrounding circumstances and can also be presumed on the part of A1. Hence we are not inclined to accept the submission that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence. Insofar as the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4-A(1)(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, admittedly, there is no evidence whatsoever to implicate the accused for the said offence. From the evidence it is seen that after the marriage both A1 and the deceased has left the place and they started living in Cuddalore and thereafter, due to some misunderstanding the deceased had gone back to her parents house and she did not return even after she gave birth to a child. From the evidence it is seen that after the marriage both A1 and the deceased has left the place and they started living in Cuddalore and thereafter, due to some misunderstanding the deceased had gone back to her parents house and she did not return even after she gave birth to a child. She was brought to the place of occurrence only just one day prior to the date of occurrence and in the meantime, nothing is alleged against the accused as to the harassment over the deceased to prove the charge under the said Section. The learned Public Prosecutor is also not able to lay his hand and to satisfy this Court as to any of the evidence let in through the prosecution witnesses to prove the above charge. Hence we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Section 4-A(1)(2)(ii) is not supported by any evidence and consequently unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 12. In so far as the appeal filed by A2 and A3 is concerned, both the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 15 is categoric as to the effect that even immediately after the marriage, the appellants had started demanding Rs.50,000/-more than what was agreed to be paid and in addition to the same, they are alleged to have demanded 25 sovereigns of more jewels over and above the jewels given prior to marriage. Their evidence has not been in anyway shaken during cross examination. In fact the entire misunderstanding is not only between A1 and his wife, but also between the members of both the families, which had started only because of the above demand of Rs.50,000/-and 25 sovereigns of jewels and that too immediately after the marriage was over and was put as a pre condition to allow both the husband and wife to live together. In these circumstances we are afraid to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence to sustain the charge of 498-A I.P.C. as against A2 and A3. Hence we find no merit to interfere in the conviction and sentence imposed on A2 and A3 under Section 498-A I.P.C. 13. In these circumstances we are afraid to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence to sustain the charge of 498-A I.P.C. as against A2 and A3. Hence we find no merit to interfere in the conviction and sentence imposed on A2 and A3 under Section 498-A I.P.C. 13. Insofar as the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C. against A1 is concerned, even P.Ws.9 and 15, the parents of the deceased have not spoken about any demand of dowry by A1 from the parents of the deceased. As their evidence implicates only A2 and A3 for demand of dowry, the learned Public Prosecutor has not drawn our attention to any other evidence to implicate A1 for demand of dowry. Hence that charge against A1 has failed. 14. For the above reasons, Crl.No.1040 of 2006 is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed and the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4A(1)(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act are set aside. 15. Crl.A.No.843 of 2006 is dismissed and the conviction and sentence on A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is confirmed.