Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. The criminal appeal is at the instance of the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpet Town Police Station, Kanchipuram, questioning the legality of the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 & 2 from the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 304(b) and 201 of I.P.C. in S.C.No.618 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpet dated 212. 2004. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: The first accused is the son of the second accused. P.W.5 is the native of Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk. They have two sons and a daughter by name Jayalakshmi. The first accused is the aunts son of P.W.5. The marriage between the first accused and Jayalakshmi took place on 9. 1998 in a Kalyanamandapam at Gudalur. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded 50 sovereign of jewels and Rs.2 lakhs cash. The parents of the deceased gave 35 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.50,000/-cash. Thereafter, there were demands during festive occasions like Deepavali and Pongal and every time, payments were made. Subsequently, there was demand for a motor bike by the first accused which was also made by the parents of the deceased in the presence of P.W.6 Village President, but the demand continued. At one point of time, in the month of July 2000 Jayalakshmi came to her mothers house, when questioned, she replied that her husband demanded 15 sovereigns of jewels and asked her to come home with 15 sovereigns of jewels otherwise she should not come back. Subsequently, a panchayat was convened and thereupon the first accused and Jayalakshmi were living separately in a house belonging to P.W.2 at No.9, C.N. Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar, Perianatham. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.4. P.W.4 was a driver attached to a Transport Corporation and he is also a neighbour of the first accused and P.W.2 is the owner of the house. Jayalakshmi had told P.W.3 that the first and the second accused are torturing her. On 14. 2001 at about 11.30 hours, P.W.2 returned home from his work and called his wife by pressing the calling bell. The second accused who is his neighbour came and opened the main gate before P.W.2s wife could come and open the gate. Then, P.W.2 took his food and went to bed. On 14. 2001 at about 11.30 hours, P.W.2 returned home from his work and called his wife by pressing the calling bell. The second accused who is his neighbour came and opened the main gate before P.W.2s wife could come and open the gate. Then, P.W.2 took his food and went to bed. At about 12O clock, P.W.4 also came from his job, had his food and went to bed. At about 1 O clock, P.W.3 noticed smoke coming from the down portion of her house where the deceased was living. Immediately, she informed it to P.W.4 and he also came out and saw the same. Both of them came out of their house and pressed the calling bell of P.W.2s house. P.W.2 and his wife came out of their house. P.W.2 found the first accused and the second accused standing outside the gate. When P.W.2 found the house of the deceased locked, he asked the accused about the key but the first accused replied that the second accused had thrown away the key. Immediately, P.W.2 who is the owner of the house, went to his house and took the duplicate key and opened the house of the deceased. He found the room full of smoke and also found Jayalakshmi dead on the bed with burn injuries. Immediately, Fire squad was informed. P.W.8 Fire personnel came to the spot with his company at 1.45 p.m. and they extinguished the fire. P.W.1 the close relative of the deceased was informed. P.W.1 came over there and he went to the police station at 8.30 a.m. on 14. 2001 and gave a complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.12 the Sub-Inspector of Police who in turn registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2001 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The first Information Report was handed over to P.W.13 Investigating Officer who took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, investigated and prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P6 and also prepared a sketch-Ex.P13 and took photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased through P.W.11 photographer. The photographs and the negatives were marked as M.Os.2 and 3 series. The investigating officer recovered the materials objects under Ex.P7 mahazar. He proceeded to the spot, investigated and prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P6 and also prepared a sketch-Ex.P13 and took photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased through P.W.11 photographer. The photographs and the negatives were marked as M.Os.2 and 3 series. The investigating officer recovered the materials objects under Ex.P7 mahazar. Since the marriage between the first accused and the deceased Jayalakshmi took place only 2 1/2 years before, the matter was informed to P.W.10 Sub-Collector who came to the spot and conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P10 inquest report and recorded the statement of the witnesses and the dead body was sent to post mortem. P.W.9, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Chengleput conducted post mortem and gave his opinion that the deceased died due to smothering and burn injuries and gave the post mortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P8. P.W.13 converted the case of offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to that of Section 302 Cr.P.C. Further, he arrested both the accused and sent them to judicial remand and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied upon 14 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, one witness on the defence side was examined and four documents were marked. 4. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side and after looking into the materials available, the lower court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and ordered acquittal of the accused. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State. .5. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the State, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the instant case, the trial Court has thoroughly failed to appreciate the evidence which was brought forth. Admittedly, the first accused/husband of the deceased & son of the second accused, the second accused and the deceased were in the house at the time of occurrence. It was night hour. P.W.3, smelt smoke coming from the house of the accused and informed it to P.W.4 her husband. Both came out of the house and informed to P.W.2. Admittedly, the first accused/husband of the deceased & son of the second accused, the second accused and the deceased were in the house at the time of occurrence. It was night hour. P.W.3, smelt smoke coming from the house of the accused and informed it to P.W.4 her husband. Both came out of the house and informed to P.W.2. P.W.2 also came out of his house. At that time, P.W.2 saw the first and the second accused standing outside the gate. He found the house of the deceased locked. He took the duplicate key from his house and opened the house of the deceased and found the deceased dead with burn injuries. Under such circumstances, when he questioned the accused, they admitted the offence and asked him to help them. Hence, it is quite clear that the first and the second accused were present at the time of occurrence. The explanation of the second accused was that they were actually inside the house at the time of occurrence and were watching Television in one room and the deceased went into the other room and closed the door and thereafter, they found the fumes coming out of the next room. They stated that the deceased had committed suicide. Learned Additional Public Prosecution further stated that the doctor never gave opinion that the deceased died only due to smothering. The doctor has categorically given in his evidence and also in the report that the death had caused due to smothering and also burn injuries. The charges were also framed only to that effect. This would clearly go to show that the medical evidence was never against the prosecution but in support of the prosecution case but the trial Court has misconstrued as if the evidence of the doctor was against the prosecution and recorded the finding that both the accused were not involved in the offence. Considering all the aspects of the evidence put forth in the instant case, the explanation putforth by the first and the second accused that the deceased had committed suicide, could not have been accepted. It is quite clear that both the accused are present at the time of occurrence and they are expected to give reasonable answer but failed to do so. They have further gone to the extend of screening the offence. It is quite clear that both the accused are present at the time of occurrence and they are expected to give reasonable answer but failed to do so. They have further gone to the extend of screening the offence. Since the deceased died within 2 1/2 years of her marriage with the first accused, the Sub-Collector was informed, who immediately came to the spot and recorded the statement of the witnesses. In the statement of P.Ws.2 to 4 they have spoken about the conduct of the accused. Further, in the incident, there was no direct evidence. It is true that the prosecution has brought forth all the circumstances necessary but the trial Court on flimsy ground has rejected the case stating the prosecution has not proved the case with sufficient evidence to show that there was dowry harassment and the death had caused on failure to give dowry. Under such circumstances, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside. 6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contention. .7. While advancing his argument on behalf of the respondents, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel would submit that in the instant case prior to the incident, actually the deceased tried to commit suicide two or three times but it had not taken place in the house where they are living presently but at Vallam and no witnesses who were examined knew the same. Apart from that, so far as the dowry demand was concerned, there was no direct evidence. Hence, the trial Court was perfectly correct in rejecting that part of the case. Only to fix its case either for the offence under Section 302 or under section 304 I.P.C., the prosecution had thoroughly developed its case stage by stage. It is true that both these accused were actually staying in the house with the deceased and these accused were found standing outside the house at the time of occurrence which cannot be stated that they were the culprits. In the instant case, the doctors opinion is clear to that effect and the prosecution story could not be believed. According to the doctor certificate the laceration and abrasion injuries were not found and when a question was put, the doctor gave opinion that when the body was totally burnt those injuries could not be noticed. In the instant case, the doctors opinion is clear to that effect and the prosecution story could not be believed. According to the doctor certificate the laceration and abrasion injuries were not found and when a question was put, the doctor gave opinion that when the body was totally burnt those injuries could not be noticed. Under such circumstances, the question of causing injuries by smothering and causing death was ruled out. So far as burn injuries are concerned, there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Merely because they were found standing outside the house cannot be a reason for inflicting them in the commission of offence. Apart from that, the prosecution had developed the case as if the accused had confessed to P.W.2/the house owner but this version was not found at the earliest point of time when the statement was recorded by the Sub-Collector. Thus, it would go to show that subsequently, the prosecution has developed the case in order to implicate the accused in the said offences. The trial Court marshalled the evidence proper stating that the prosecution has not proved its case either by direct or circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. Under such circumstances, the lower Court is perfectly correct in acquitting the accused and the judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained. 8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. It is settled principle of law and also the decision of the Supreme Court that in a given case like this where the trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion and recorded the acquittal, the judgment should not be interfered with, unless and until the judgment is perverse or accepted by sufficient reasons. From the available evidence which were placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside for the following reasons. .9. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the son of the second accused. The marriage between the deceased and the first accused took place at Gudalur on 9. 1998 and there was demand for jewels and cash. Since, part of the demand was given, the demand continued thereafter. .9. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the son of the second accused. The marriage between the deceased and the first accused took place at Gudalur on 9. 1998 and there was demand for jewels and cash. Since, part of the demand was given, the demand continued thereafter. It is pertinent to point out that so far as dowry demand is concerned, except the neighbours who had spoken about the fact, there is no evidence which could be sustained and convict the accused in this regard bringing home the guilty of the accused. Further, it is quite clear that the deceased was living in her mothers house for some time and panchayat was convened and she was taken back by the first accused. They were living as separate family at No.9, c.N.Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar. P.W.2 is the owner of the house who was residing with his family in the upstairs. The occurrence has taken place on 14. 2001 during night hours. According to P.W.2, he came back from his job at 11.00 p.m. P.W.4 and P.W.3 were neighbours. P.W.4 also came back from his job at 12O Clock. P.W.3 first witnessed fumes coming out of the house of accused. Immediately, she informed her husband and both called P.W.2, the house owner who is residing upstairs. He also came out from his house. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, it is quite clear that when they saw the fumes coming out of the house of the accused, the first and the second accused were standing outside the house. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that it was the first accused who was living with the deceased who is his wife and during the relevant time on that day they were staying together. It is also not in dispute that the second accused was also living with them that night. Thus, it is quite clear that only three persons were staying viz., A1, A2 and the deceased Jayalakshmi in the said house and it is a small house with few rooms. The statement of the accused before the trial Court was that they had dinner that night and after watching television, the deceased Jayalskhmi went inside the next room and closed the door and thereafter they found fumes coming out of the said room. The statement of the accused before the trial Court was that they had dinner that night and after watching television, the deceased Jayalskhmi went inside the next room and closed the door and thereafter they found fumes coming out of the said room. If it is so, the natural conduct as the husband and mother-in-law would be, to go and rescue the deceased, instead, both of them were found standing outside the house. Further, it is pertinent to pointed out that P.Ws.2 to 4 found the house of the deceased locked and when P.W.2 asked about the key of the house, the key was not handed over by the accused. So, P.W.2 went upstairs and took the duplicate key and opened the house and found the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the only persons who could give proper answer is the first and the second accused and the law would except responsible answer from those persons as they are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively who were staying with the deceased at the time of occurrence. But they answered that the deceased committed suicide. The theory of suicide as putforth by the accused has got to be negatived for more reasons than one. Naturally, when a wife or daughter-in-law attempts to commit suicide in the next room and when the husband and mother-in-law who were staying in the same house come to know of it they would have tried to save the deceased from committing suicide. On the contrary, according to P.W.2, after closing the door of the house they were found standing near the gate. Hence, it could be seen that the accused were about to escape from the scene but they could not do so since the neighbours and the house owner came out of their house immediately and saw both the accused standing near the gate. Added further, the doctors opinion, would go to show that the theory of suicide is nothing but falsehood which has got to be brushed aside. 10. In the instant case, the lower Court has not properly looked into the evidence given by the doctor. There was a specific charge alleged against both the accused that actually there was smothering and thereafter kerosene was poured and set fire and caused the death of Jayalakshmi. 10. In the instant case, the lower Court has not properly looked into the evidence given by the doctor. There was a specific charge alleged against both the accused that actually there was smothering and thereafter kerosene was poured and set fire and caused the death of Jayalakshmi. It is quite clear that as far as charge No.1 is concerned, in the instant case, the doctor has given opinion which could be seen from the post mortem report and also from his evidence before the Court that the cause of death was both by smothering and by burn injuries. The lower Court has lost sight of this part of the evidence. On the contrary, the lower Court has taken a view as if the injuries could not have been found if the body was fully burnt. If it is to be so, smothering cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the Sub-Collector P.W.10 was informed and immediately, he came to spot and conducted inquest and the statement of the witnesses were recorded. At this juncture, at the earliest point of time P.W.2 had informed the Sub-collector that when he came down from his house, he found both the accused standing near the gate and when questioned, they asked him to save them. Further, it is the statement to the effect that he went upstairs and took the duplicate key and opened the house of the deceased. All would go to show that the first and the second accused were about to leave the place by locking the door but P.Ws.2 to 4 came out and stopped them. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the alleged extra-judicial confession was nothing but the development made by the prosecution and nowhere before the Sub-Collector P.W.2 has stated that the first and second accused, when questioned came out with the reply that they have committed the offence. It is true that the key of the house was found missing. From the statement recorded by the Sub-Collector, it is quite clear that when P.W.2 questioned both the accused, they have stated that they should be saved. At the time of incident, the door was kept locked and the where about of the key was not known to them. The persons who are expected to give responsible answer have no answer to give. At the time of incident, the door was kept locked and the where about of the key was not known to them. The persons who are expected to give responsible answer have no answer to give. It is appropriate to cite the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 80 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharastra wherein it is stated that in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer any cogent explanation or offers an explanation which is untrue, then it can be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against the accused. In the instant case all the circumstances would clearly show that except these accused, no one could have committed the offence. The last point of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was a delay in the registration of the case does not require consideration at all because P.W.1 the close relative of the deceased was a person who was staying away from the house. He was informed about the incident and he came to the spot, went to the police station and gave a complaint and naturally the delay had occasioned. Such delay do not affect the prosecution case. The lower Court has not considered the evidence proper and has not given the proper reason for making the order of acquittal. Hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside. Both the accused have committed murder of the deceased Jayalakshmi, therefore, both the accused have to be convicted as per charge No.1. 11. This Court is of the considered view, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents 1 and 2 /accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and they stand convicted. Hence, issue notice to the respondents 1 & 2/ accused Nos. 1 & 2 for their appearance before this Court on 28.08.2008 at 10.30 a.m. as to the question of sentence to be imposed on them. 12. Pursuant to the notice of the court, both the respondents are present before the court. They were informed that they were convicted under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC. They were asked to tell about the sentence to be awarded to them. According to the first respondent, he has not committed any offence. 12. Pursuant to the notice of the court, both the respondents are present before the court. They were informed that they were convicted under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC. They were asked to tell about the sentence to be awarded to them. According to the first respondent, he has not committed any offence. So far as the second respondent is concerned, she is the mother of the first respondent and she is aged and is under ailment and she could not move about and hence it has got to be considered by the court and further, she was not involved in the offence at all. 13. The Court is of the considered opinion that they have been found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with S.34 IPC. It is a pathetic case where both these respondents have actually caused murder of 19 years old wife of the first respondent by setting her fire inside the house, which in the opinion of the court is fit to convict them under Section 302 read with S.34 IPC. 14. Accordingly, the judgment of trial court is set aside. The respondents herein are convicted under Section 302 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Considering the circumstances, no fine is imposed on them. The respondents are committed to prison to undergo the sentence imposed on them. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.