JUDGMENT Ms. R. MALA, J. This appeal arises out of the verdict of conviction in S.C. No. 39 of 2006 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC for committing murder/of his wife Rajalakshmi by pouring kerosene and set fire on her and imposing Life Imprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.500/-. 2. Briefly stated case of prosecution is as follows:- (i) The deceased Rajalakshmi was the wife of the accused/appellant. They were having two children by name Venkatesan (P.W.2) and one Sulochana (P.W.5). Sulochana was given in marriage to the brother of the deceased Rajalakshmi. The accused was employed at tea shop. They are all residing in colony house owned by one Krishnamurthy Iyer at Vadakkumadavilagam, Thiruvidaimaruthur. (ii) The accused/appellant was always suspecting the fidelity of his wife Rajalakshmi and he was also suspecting that his wife/deceased Rajalakshmi was having illicit intimacy with P.W.3-Rajendran, who was the neighbor and having Tea Shop. On the fateful day, of 20.1.2005, at 4.30 a.m., P.W.2 Venkatesan, as usual had gone to distribute the paper. when P.W.1-Sekar was proceeding to Tea Shop, he heard an alarm near the house of accused. Immediately, he rushed there. P.W.2-Venkatesan also heard the noise and rushed to his house. Since the door was locked they knocked the door. At that time, the accused/appellant came out of the house with bottle (M.O.1) and uttering the words and ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.3-Rajendran and P.W.4-Kaliamoorthy, who heard the noise rushed there and they had also witnessed that the accused/appellant came out of the house with bottle and uttering the words that he set fire on his wife and his suspicion was over. Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 4 taken the injured Rajalakshmi to Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. (iii) P.W.8-Dr. Arulmozhi, Assistant Medical Officer attached to Government hospital, Kumbakonam admitted Rajalakshmi, who was having 90% of burn injuries and treated her. Exhibit A-11 is the Accident Register issued to the deceased Rajalakshmi. The deceased had stated that his husband poured kerosene and set fire on her. On requisition (Exhibit P-9), P.W.7-Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam went to the hospital and recorded Dying Declaration of deceased Rajalakshmi between 7.45 a.m. and 8.10 a.m. Exhibit P-10 is the Dying Declaration recorded by P.W.7-Judicial Magistrate. P.W.9-Dr.Arul Sevan, Duty Doctor certified that the injured Rajalakshmi was in a fit state of mind for giving dying declaration. The certificates issued by P.W.9 are Exhibits P-12 and 13. P.W.9-Dr.Arul Sevan, Duty Doctor certified that the injured Rajalakshmi was in a fit state of mind for giving dying declaration. The certificates issued by P.W.9 are Exhibits P-12 and 13. (iv) P.W.14-Varalakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police attached to Thiruvidaimaruthur post Police Station received an intimation from the hospital and saw the victim and received the complaint Exhibit P-16 from the injured Rajalakshmi. On the basis of Exhibit P-16, a case was registered in Cr. No. 16 of 2005 under Section 307 IPC. Exhibit P-17 is the printed FIR. (v) P.W.17-Palanichamy, Inspector of Police (10) inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-5-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan in the presence of P.W.4-Kaliamoorthy and P.W.6-T.S. Kannan, Village Assistant and recovered M.O.2 (burnt yellow cloth), M.O.3 (burnt hair), M.O.4 (green coloured Plastic mug) and M.O.5 (white coloured plastic cap) under Exhibit P-6-Mahazar. P.W.17 examined the witnesses, (vi) On the same day at about 13.55 p.m. injured Rajalakshmi succumbed to injuries. P.W.17-Palanichamy received an intimation regarding death of Rajalakshmi and altered the case in Cr. No. 16 of 2005 from Section 307 IPC to 302 IPC under Exhibit P-20-Express Report. Witnesses were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and P.W.17 conducted Inquest on the body of deceased Rajalakshmi in Kumbakonam Govt. Headquarters hospital. Exhibit P-21 is the Inquest Report. After Inquest, body was sent to autopsy. (vii) On 21.1.2005, at 1.20 p.m. P.W.10-Dr.Raja conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Rajalakshmi and noted the following injuries: External injuries: Burn injury all over the body except both the foot and half of the scalp, 90% burns. Scalp hair partly burns on opening of the skull, P.W.10 found scalp partially burnt. P.W.10 opined that the deceased died 29 hours prior to postmortem due to the muscle of burns injury sustained. Exhibit P-14 is the postmortem certificate. (viii) On 21.1.2005 at 5.00 a.m., P.W.17-10 arrested the accused Krishnamoorthy, who was standing before the Government Hospital, Thiruvidaimaruthur in the presence of P.W.4 Kaliamoorthy and P.W.6 T.S. Kannan, Village Assistant. The accused gave a confession statement (sic) voluntarily. The admissible portion of the confession statement is Exhibit P-22. In pursuance of the same, P.W.17-10 recovered M.O.1 bottle under Exhibit P-8 mahazar and since the accused sustained burn injuries, he was sent to Government Hospital for treatment with memo. P.W.15 Dr. Ravikumar, on 21.1.2005 at 10.45 p.m., treated the accused/appellant. The accused gave a confession statement (sic) voluntarily. The admissible portion of the confession statement is Exhibit P-22. In pursuance of the same, P.W.17-10 recovered M.O.1 bottle under Exhibit P-8 mahazar and since the accused sustained burn injuries, he was sent to Government Hospital for treatment with memo. P.W.15 Dr. Ravikumar, on 21.1.2005 at 10.45 p.m., treated the accused/appellant. At the time of treatment, before P.W.15 the accused had admitted that since he poured petrol and set fire on his wife, he also sustained burn injuries. P.W.15-Dr. Ravikumar treated the accused and thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.16-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam had recorded 164 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and same were marked as Exhibits P-1 to 4. After examination of witnesses and after completion of due investigation, P.W.17 filed final report against the accused on 3.3.2005 under Section 302 IPC. 3. To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and Exhibits P-1 to 23 and M.Os.1 and 5 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them. The Trial Court after considering the oral evidence and documents came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is a homicidal since both the accused and deceased were alone in the house till P.Ws.1 to 3 came there and they had knocked the door, at that time, the accused/appellant came out of his house with M.O.1 plastic bottle with burn injuries. Learned sessions Judge held that the accused has not given any explanation in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Considering the same, the trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-. 4. Challenging the verdict of conviction and sentence, Mr. N. Prahalad Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no eye witness; even though P.Ws.1 to 4 had taken the injured to hospital, there is no direct eye witnesses to prove the occurrence. Alleging that arrest of the accused had been made on the next day of the occurrence, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that no evidence has been placed before the trial Court to prove the arrest. Alleging that arrest of the accused had been made on the next day of the occurrence, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that no evidence has been placed before the trial Court to prove the arrest. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that injuries sustained by the accused/appellant has not been explained; motive was not proved and there are different versions the trial Court has not considered all the aspects and therefore, the benefit of doubt to be given in favour of the appellant/accused and he is entitled for acquittal and thus, the learned counsel for appellant prayed for the allowing of the appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. Issac Manuel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that at the time of occurrence, the accused and deceased alone were available in the house; there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3; the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased stating that P.W.3 Rajendran was having illicit intimacy with his wife. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that when the accused committed the offence in the locked room, no one was available inside the house and after hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 4 gone there and knocked the door and then only, the accused came out of his house with bottle and uttering the words which has clearly proved that the accused alone caused injuries to the deceased by pouring kerosene and set fire on her, which lead to her death and motive has been proved. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that injuries sustained by the accused has been proved by way of examination of P.W.15-Dr. Ravikumar; dying declaration of the deceased also clearly establishes that the accused alone committed the offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the trial Court has taken all the aspects in a proper prospective and came to the correct conclusion and convicted the accused and hence, there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence and warrants no interference and thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/ accused is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage had taken place 20 years ago. They had one daughter, P.W.5, Sulochana who married the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. 6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/ accused is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage had taken place 20 years ago. They had one daughter, P.W.5, Sulochana who married the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 was doing plus two and usually in the morning, P.W.2 was doing paper distribution work. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are the independent witnesses. As per the evidence, it is quite clear that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife/deceased and he had been harassing and torturing his wife connecting her with P.W.3-Rajendran. In 313 Cr.P.C statement also, the accused stated that when he returned home from Tiruppathi, he came to know that his wife had vacated the house and shifted her residence to near P.W.3-Rajendran's house. 7. The motive has been proved by way of examining P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5. P.W.1 is the third party. He is not a relative of the deceased or accused. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that always the accused and deceased having quarrel with each other and there was problem with them. But, P.W.2, who is none other than the son of the accused and deceased deposed against his father means, his evidence is (sic) to be considered. In his evidence, P.W.2 had stated that since his father had been suspecting the fidelity of his mother stating that she was having illicit intimacy with P.W.3-Rajendran, P.W.2 gave a complaint before Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station and an enquiry has been conducted and they advised not to have such illicit intimacy. P.W.2 had deposed as follows: So, it is clear that the accused had created some problems stating that his wife was having illicit intimacy with P.W.3-Rajendran. P.W.5, who is none other than the daughter of both appellant and deceased has corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 stating that before 2001, his father gave a complaint against P.W.3-Rajendran stating that he was having illicit intimacy with her mother and an enquiry had been conducted and the police has given advice not to have such illegal connection and then only, they had shifted the house in the year 2004. 8. P.W.3 Rajendran in his chief examination, had stated that the accused was always suspecting the fidelity of his wife and also having suspicion that his wife was having illicit intimacy with himself and hence he tried to vacate the house. 8. P.W.3 Rajendran in his chief examination, had stated that the accused was always suspecting the fidelity of his wife and also having suspicion that his wife was having illicit intimacy with himself and hence he tried to vacate the house. During cross examination of P.W.3, a suggestion was posed him that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with him that was known to the accused and a complaint has been given before Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station and then also, he continued his illicit intimacy with the deceased and hence the deceased herself committed suicide, but, P.W.3 denied the same. So, it is clearly proved that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with P.W.3-Rajendran and hence the accused had suspected on her fidelity. Thus, by evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, the motive has been proved by the prosecution. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the time of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. While considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the third party, he had stated that on 20.1.2005, at about 5.00 a.m. or 5.30 a.m., when he had gone to tea shop, he heard a noise from the accused's house and rushed there. P.W.2, who is none other than the son of the accused, had stated in his chief examination that when he had gone to distribute the paper, he heard the noise and he rushed to the place of occurrence. But, P.W. 12 has not mentioned the specific time. But, in his cross examination, P.W.2 had stated that usually he had gone to distribute the paper at 5.00 a.m. and he had stated before the investigating officer that on the date of occurrence he had gone to distribute the paper at 4.30 a.m. 10. P.W.3-Rajendran, in his evidence, had stated that when he was at tea shop at 5.15 a.m., he heard the news from others, who came to tea shop. Hence, P.Ws.1 to 3 had stated that occurrence had taken place at 5.00 a.m. to 5.30 a.m, 5.00 a.m and 5.15 a.m. respectively. At this juncture, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by the Apex court in AIR 2004 SC 3962 : (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1051 : (2004) 2 TNLR 295 (SC), In the moffusil, the people from rustic village are not having time sense. At this juncture, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by the Apex court in AIR 2004 SC 3962 : (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1051 : (2004) 2 TNLR 295 (SC), In the moffusil, the people from rustic village are not having time sense. The relevant portion is as follows at p. 1054 of MLJ (Crl): "9. ……The witness belongs to a small village and are not educated. The mere fact that there is some variation in point of time when the occurrence took place would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution." Hence, we are of the considered opinion that even there is some variation regarding the time of occurrence, it would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. 11. The learned counsel would contend that the injuries sustained by the accused had not been proved by the prosecution. To prove the injuries sustained by the accused, P.W.15-Dr. Ravikumar was examined. In his evidence, he had stated that when he has treated the accused for his burn injuries, the accused himself stated that when he poured petrol and set fire on his wife, he also sustained burn injuries. P.W.1 had stated in his cross examination that when the accused came out of his house, P.W.1 noticed that accused sustained burn injuries all over the body. P.W.2, son of the accused had also stated that when his father came out of his house, he noticed sustaining of burn injuries on his hand. So, the injuries sustained by the appellant has been explained by the prosecution. 12. To prove the arrest of the accused, P.W.6 T.S. Kannan, Village Assistant, in his evidence, had stated that on 21.1.2005 at 5.00 a.m., P.W.17, Inspector of Police had arrested the accused in front of Thiruvidaimaruthur Government Hospital in presence of him and P.W.4, who turned hostile. At that tine, the accused had given confession statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion Exhibit P-22, the accused handed over M.O.1 which has been seized under Exhibit P-8. The evidence of P.W.17 is corroborated by P.W.6 and he had stated that in pursuance of the confession statement, the accused had taken M.O.1 plastic bottle adjacent to the Sithivinayagar Pillayar temple and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. The evidence of P.W.17 is corroborated by P.W.6 and he had stated that in pursuance of the confession statement, the accused had taken M.O.1 plastic bottle adjacent to the Sithivinayagar Pillayar temple and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. But, while considering Exhibit P8 seizure mahazar, it was stated as follows: This shows that evidence of P.W.6 fortifying the evidence of P.W.17 and Exhibit P-8. So, the arrest of the accused, confession and recovery of M.O.1 have been proved by the prosecution. 13. It is pertinent to note that no one else was inside the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4, only after hearing the noise and knocked the door and the same time, the accused came out of the house with burn injuries. But, there is no eye evidence that the accused himself poured kerosene and set fire on his wife. 14. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court AIR 2007 SC 2531 : (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 875. Once the prosecution has proved that at the relevant time in the room were in exclusive occupation of the appellant and deceased, the burden of proof lay upon the accused to show under what circumstances, his wife has sustained burn injuries. The relevant portion is as follows: "36. If it is proved that the deaeased died in an unnatural circumstance in her bed room, which was occupied only by her and her husband, law requires the husband to offer an explanation in this behalf. We, however, do not intend to lay down a general law in this behalf as much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Absence of any explanation by the husband would lead to an interference which would lead to a circumstance against the accused. 37. We may, however, notice that recently in (2007) 1 Scale 19 : JT (2007) 1 SC 239, this Court opined: "Once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same." This legal position would appear from a decision in AIR 1972 SC 2077 wherein it was held: "It is in the evidence of Girju PW that only the accused and Churi deceased resided in the house of the accused. To similar effect are the statements of Mani Ram(P.W.8), who is the uncle of the accused, and Bhagat Ram school teacher (P.W.16). According to Bhagat Ram, he saw the accused and the deceased together at their house on the day of occurrence. Mani Ram (P.W.8) saw the accused at his at 3 p.m., while Poshu Ram, (P.W.7) saw the accused and the and the deceased at their house on the evening of the day of occurrence. The accused also does not deny that he was with the deceased at his house on the day of occurrence. The house of the accused according to plan PM, consists of one residential room one other small room and a varandah. The correctness of that plan is proved by A.R. Verma overseer (P.W.5). The fact that the accused alone was with Churi deceased in the house when she was murdered there with the Khokhri and the fact that the relations of the accused with the deceased, as would be shown hereafter, were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt." In JT (2006) 9 SC 50, the law is stated in the following terms: "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime..." While considering the above citation, here, the prosecution has proved after hearing the alarm, P.Ws.1 to 4 gone to the place of occurrence and they knocked the door, then only, the accused came out of his house with burn injuries. But, during trial, the accused had not given any explanation as to how himself and his Wife have sustained injuries. But, during trial, the accused had not given any explanation as to how himself and his Wife have sustained injuries. At the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also he had given yet another story and not given any explanation as to how his wife sustained injuries. In the above circumstances, we feel that the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. So, it is incumbent upon the accused/appellant to explain how his wife sustained injury while the accused and deceased alone were inside the house. 15. Yet another piece of evidence adduced by the prosecution is the dying declaration Exhibit P-10. It is pertinent to note that the deceased herself set the law in motion, she alone gave a complaint that has been marked as Exhibit P-16, which was given at 10.00 a.m. and recorded by P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police. When, the deceased was admitted in the hospital, P.W.8 Dr. Arulmozhi had treated the deceased on 21.1.2005 at 7.20 a.m. At that time, the deceased had stated before P.W.8 that at 5.00 a.m., when she was in her house, her husband poured kerosene and set fire on her. Then only, information was given to police and they came there and hence P.W.14 recorded the complaint from the deceased which is marked as Exhibit P-16. While considering Exhibit P-16 Complaint, she had stated that her husband had entered the house and bolted the house and entering her room, where she was having bed and poured kerosene mixed with petrol and set fire on her. Before giving complaint, P.W.7-Judicial magistrate, had recorded the dying declaration (Exhibit P-10) of the deceased at 8.10 a.m., In that also she had stated that at 5.15 a.m., when she was in her house, her husband has poured something on her body and she attempted to raise, he set fire on her and since she was not able to run, fell down on the Courtyard raising alarm and sustained injuries and on hearing the alarm, others came and rescue her and admitted in hospital. While considering Exhibit P-5-Observation mahazar, it was stated that partly burnt cloth of the deceased has been found in the Courtyard, which was marked as M.O.2. So, it has been clearly proved that the dying declaration is true and voluntary. It is pertinent to note that P.W.10, Dr. While considering Exhibit P-5-Observation mahazar, it was stated that partly burnt cloth of the deceased has been found in the Courtyard, which was marked as M.O.2. So, it has been clearly proved that the dying declaration is true and voluntary. It is pertinent to note that P.W.10, Dr. Arul Selvam, who was available at the time of taking dying declaration by P.W.7-Judicial Magistrate, had given a certificate (Exhibit P-12) that the deponent was in a fit state of mind for giving dying declaration and he has also given an another certificate (Exhibit P-13) that she was conscious and in a fit state of mind throughout the time of giving dying declaration. So, there is no reason to discard Exhibit P-10 dying declaration. While considering the A.R.Copy Exhibit P-11, Exhibit P-10 dying declaration and Exhibit P-16 complaint, they have clearly proved that the accused alone poured kerosene and set fire on his wife/deceased, which lead to her death. 16. Having gone through the evidence and judgment of the trial Court, we are satisfied that the appellant/accused was rightly convicted and there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, we do not find any reason for interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court in S.C. No. 39 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Thanjavur is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.