JUDGMENT : N.K.Sudhindrarao, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.155/2013 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, on 30.01.2015, wherein the appellant was found guilty under Section 235 (2) Cr.PC and was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and both sentences shall run consecutively. 2. The complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 0019/2013 of Thilak Park Police Station, Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC against Manjunatha, son of late Gangaiah, of Kuripalya, Tumkur. The complainant is one Jayamma, wife of said Manjunatha and the complaint was lodged on 26.01.2013 at 9.15 a.m. registered in the crime number stated above 3. The substance of the complaint is that, On 26.01.2013 at about 8.00 a.m., the Police received intimation from District Government Hospital, Tumkur, and when the Police visited the hospital, he was taken to injured Jayamma and her statement was recorded. She is said to have stated that, about 10 years back, she was given in marriage to Manjunatha, S/o. Gangaiah, Kuripalya, Tumkur and through the marriage, she got a son and a daughter who were then aged 4 and 7 years respectively. Right from the beginning of marital days, her husband used to consume alcohol and was creating havoc in the family. He used to abuse in a filthy language. In this connection several Panchayat were conducted, but were of no avail. On 25.01.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. Manjunatha came in a drunken state to house, raised galata with the complainant and abused her in bad language as 'sulemunde bolimunde' further with the intention of killing the complainant, took out kerosene can and poured kerosene on the complainant and set her ablaze, thus, tried to murder her. When she screamed, neighbhours Manjamma, wife of Murthappa and Kariyamma, wife of Doddaiah, came and offered assistance to her. Case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. When she screamed, neighbhours Manjamma, wife of Murthappa and Kariyamma, wife of Doddaiah, came and offered assistance to her. Case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. It was upon her death due to burn injuries, case is chargesheeted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. 4. On completion of investigation, the accused was chargesheeted in CC No.1646/2013. It is stated that on 25.01.2013 accused inflicted serious injuries by pouring kerosene and setting complainant ablaze. Manjunatha, from the date of marriage till the date of incident used to pose torture, inflict injuries on her. Further, harassed her physically and mentally and caused cruelty to her. On 25.01.2013, in the evening, when Jayamma was at house, he raised quarrel regarding getting provisions and took out a can containing kerosene, poured on Jayamma and set her ablaze, because of which, she sustained serious injuries and being unable to recover from burn injuries, she succumbed to them on 29-01-2013. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. 5. During the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 16, documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P10 and documentary evidence of Ex.D1 in the form of statement of PW3 and material objects MO1- Plastic can and MO2- Match box. 6. On considering the evidence stated above and on the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, accused was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 7. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with their ranks as held by them before the trial court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Sri. N.R. Krishnappa and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri. Vijaya kumar Majage for prosecution. 9. Sri. N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for accused would submit that, accused is only the victim of circumstances without any fault of him and learned trial Judge failed to take note of the discrepancies between the evidence of complainant and her daughter PW1 and the neighbhours and independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version in principle. 9. Sri. N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for accused would submit that, accused is only the victim of circumstances without any fault of him and learned trial Judge failed to take note of the discrepancies between the evidence of complainant and her daughter PW1 and the neighbhours and independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version in principle. He would further submit that on reading the oral evidence of the witnesses, perusing the documents, apparently, it could be seen that the accused is innocent and was falsely roped into the case. 10. Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution would submit that the grievous injuries to the victim was sustained by her at home at the hands of the accused and he was arrested on 27.01.2013. Right from the day one, the marital life was never easy or was bearable. The accused never missed a single opportunity to harass and torture his wife Jayamma. He used to consume alcohol and come home intoxicated and beat Jayamma mercilessly and had made her life miserable. He would further submit that there are no exaggerations or artificial versions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. All those would spoke in respect of the commission of offence by the accused on his wife Jayamma, spoken naturally and it established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. 11. The statement was given by complainant Jayamma when she was in control of her state of affair and able to give her statement. It was further submitted that injured is the best witness. There is no occasion or circumstances to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Section 307 IPC which deals with attempt to murder was converted into Section 302 IPC by virtue of death of Jayamma, wife of the accused. 12. The main offence charged against the accused is the one punishable under Section 302 IPC and it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish the death of Jayamma on 29.01.2013 is a homicidal. 13. 12. The main offence charged against the accused is the one punishable under Section 302 IPC and it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish the death of Jayamma on 29.01.2013 is a homicidal. 13. In this connection, the complaint is in the form of statement - Ex.P7, which is the statement of Jayamma when she was with burn injuries, evidence of the Station House Officer-HC42, Ex.P4-Inquest mahazar dated 30.01.2013 reveals the status of Jayamma and massive burn injuries borne by the dead body and posture versions and statement of witnesses are confirming factors to conclude that death of Jayamma on 29.01.2013. Postmortem Report dated 30-01-2013 is marked as Ex.P3 and the ante mortem injuries mentioned therein and cause of death is due to Septicemia, and the death was unnatural. 14. Thus, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the fact of death of Jayamma, wife of Manjunatha/accused on 29.01.2013 was a homicidal and not a natural one. 15. Further, it is also incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that homicidal death of Jayamma was caused by the accused. In this connection, it is necessary to go through the evidence of the witnesses. 16. Among the witnesses who were examined, PW1-Rakshitha is the daughter of accused and deceased. This witness was aged 08 years as on the date of giving her evidence. 17. Rakshitha, is cited as CW2, she is a child witness examined as PW1 and learned trial Judge by posing questions ascertained her ability to understand the question and to give answers and she was permitted to be examined. In her chief- examination on 17.09.2014, she tells about the relationship between the accused and the deceased as they are parents. CW3- Abhilash, is her brother. CW18- Shivanna and CW19- Neelamma are her grand parents. This witness and her brother were residing with her parents. Her father was of quarrelsome nature. She does not know the reason for quarrel. About two years back, one day night, her father poured kerosene on her mother and set fire. Her mother was taken to Victoria Hospital, there she died. She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. She denied the suggestion that her mother contacting fire from stove and accused saving her and also getting injured in the process. This witness what is spoken may be less, but tells about the overtact. Her mother was taken to Victoria Hospital, there she died. She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. She denied the suggestion that her mother contacting fire from stove and accused saving her and also getting injured in the process. This witness what is spoken may be less, but tells about the overtact. She was mindful of the fact that accused being her father and deceased being her mother. 18. Pw2-Vinay Kumar, is a known person to the accused and the victim and also circumstantial witness. This witness states that accused was his relative and his spouse with children were staying together and galata was happening very often and one day two years back at 7.30 p.m., people were speaking regarding accused pouring kerosene on Jayamma and when this witness went to the house, fire was put off, he took her to Tumkur Hospital, thereafter, taken to Bangalore hospital. 19. Pw3-Manjamma, resides in the same village. She deposes that accused, deceased and their children were residing near her house and are relatives of this witness. There used to be galata in the house regarding buying of provision. She has given statement before the police and she has not stated before the police that the accused was putting off the fire with the help of clothes, which portion is marked as Ex.D1. She was cross examined. No significant contradictions are elicited. 20. Pw4-Dr. Purushotham is the Medical Officer, who has examined Jayamma on the date of the incident i.e. on 25.01.2013 and he has observed that victim has suffered 90 to 95 percent of 2nd degree burns has covered entire body, except forehand. He referred her to General Surgeon, sent her to Burns Ward and on the same day, he has examined one Manja, 40 years stated to be the husband of Jayamma with burn injuries. He denies suggestions by learned defence counsel. 21. Pw5-Maruthi, is circumstantial witness, but turns hostile and does not supports the prosecution case. Hostile. 22. Pw6-Rajashekhar is circumstantial witness and he has given his evidence on 20.11.2014. He denies suggestions by learned defence counsel. 21. Pw5-Maruthi, is circumstantial witness, but turns hostile and does not supports the prosecution case. Hostile. 22. Pw6-Rajashekhar is circumstantial witness and he has given his evidence on 20.11.2014. His evidence is, about one and half years back, at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. CW1 Jayamma came out from the house and she was in flames and this witness and others went near her and by that time, fire was put off and she was taken to Tumkur hospital and thereafter, she was taken to Bangalore Hospital. He was treated hostile and cross examined. But no significant admission are elicited from him. 23. Pw7-Dr. Indira, has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Jayamma on 30.01.2013 and her evidence reveals the fact that Jayamma died due to burn injuries. 24. Pw8-Roopa is the sister of victim. She was examined on 20.11.2014. She tells about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused to her sister. She states that accused used to came home intoxicated and beat Jayamma. During her life time, Jayamma used to express her grievance with this witness. During her cross examination, she denies the suggestions. 25. Pw9-Geetha, was examined on 20.11.2014. She is the elder sister of Jayamma. Her evidence is almost in the same lines of her sister PW8-Roopa. 26. Pw10-Hanumantharayappa, is the paternal uncle of Jayamma. His evidence is to the effect that Jayamma used to disclose marital difficulties, ill-treatment by her husband, not being properly maintained by the accused. He has advised accused. He tells about the fire put to Jayamma. 27. Pw11-Shivanna @ Tamate Shivanna, is the father of Jayamma. He tells about the relationship and the accused was not bringing provisions for the family further not maintaining the family. This witness used to send rice flour to Jayamma. Accused used to beat Jayamma and tells about the incident of accused setting fire to Jayamma and according to him, at about 12 a.m. one and half years back, he got the news and went to District Hospital Tumkur and tells about the burn injuries sustained by his daughter Jayamma. This witness further states that accused was also there. He denies the suggestions made against his version. 28. Pw12-Neelamma is the mother of Jayamma. She was examined on 20.11.2014. She deposes in the lines of her husband PW11. This witness further states that accused was also there. He denies the suggestions made against his version. 28. Pw12-Neelamma is the mother of Jayamma. She was examined on 20.11.2014. She deposes in the lines of her husband PW11. She says Jayamma has told to this witness that accused is even not getting provisions and looking after her and even 15 days back she came home and shows her chest, mouth and suffered pains because she was beaten by her husband. She tells about the incident that is said to have been happened one and half years back and she confirms the version of her husband regarding the death of Jayamma. 29. Pw13-Narasimhamurty is examined on 20-11-2014. He tells about the mahazar and seizure of can and match box and mahazar is marked as Ex.P5. 30. Pw14-Dr.Suresh babu has examined Jayamma on 26.01.2013 at 8.30 a.m., she was bearing burn injuries and she was aware of place, time and after confirming her status, he permitted the Police Officers to obtain her statement. He has signed the statement of victim as Ex.P7 and his signature is Ex.P7(a) and also identifies the signature of the injured as per Ex.P7(c). He was cross examined. No significant contradictions were elicited. 31. Pw15-N.Guruprasad, Sub Inspector of Police and he has spoken that on 26.01.2013 he went to hospital and recorded the statement of Jayamma. He has conducted part of investigation, seized material objects- kerosene can and match box. He received the information on 30.1.2013 that Jayamma was dead and he gave intimation for registering offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. 32. Pw16- H.Y.Jagadeesh is the Circle Inspector of Police. He has conducted substantial part of investigation, recorded the statements of PWs-1,5,6,8,9,10, CWs-3, 11,12, 13, sent the seized articles for chemical examination, collected document's like wound certificate, FSL report and submitted the final report. 33. The offences that were registered against the accused as per the FIR are, punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC committed against his wife Jayamma at Kuripalya, Tumkur Town on 25.01.2013. 34. The report in this case was not lodged in the Police Station. The complainant had sustained burn injuries of 90% to 95% said to have been inflicted by her husband/accused. 34. The report in this case was not lodged in the Police Station. The complainant had sustained burn injuries of 90% to 95% said to have been inflicted by her husband/accused. It is stated that she was examined and in a short duration she was able to understand question and answers and on examination by the Doctor, Police Inspector collected her statement as per Ex.P7. However, on 29.01.2013 she succumbed to injuries. Naturally, the offence was transformed into one punishable under Section 302 of IPC in place of 307 IPC. 35. Pw1-Rakshitha, daughter of accused was aged 08 years on the date of giving her evidence on 17-09-2014 and was 06 years at the time of incident. She happens to be an eye witness. She tells that accused and victim are her parents and accused litting fire on his wife Jayamma. This witness was at loss from both the ends. She lost her mother and her evidence confirmed the act of her father. In this context, she has deposed knowing fully well that having lost her mother, is likely to loose the company of her father as well, still then, she has spoken her version which does not appear to be exaggerated or artificial. Her evidence in brief speaking on the act of her father setting fire to her mother, Jayamma, inspires confidence to believe the version as there were no material defect in her evidence. Further, there was no person was biased or tutored her to give evidence against the accused. The witnesses PWs-2,3,5,6,8,9 and 10 speak regarding the circumstances prevalent for believing the version of the accused. 36. Further, accused can never be considered as a victim of circumstances. He has most brutally and ferociously inflicted injuries to his wife, that too, in a horrible way by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze on 25.01.2013. There are no lapses in the evidence and the materials of the prosecution. The neighbours, more particularly, PWs-8,9,10,11 and 12 sisters and parents have given natural version which is authenticated without glorifying the facts. The incident happened in the house at Kuripalya, Tumkur. She had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 90 to 95 percent and accused was arrested on the very next day. 37. It is not the question of quantum of witnesses, but it is the amount of evidence that inspires confidence of the Court. The incident happened in the house at Kuripalya, Tumkur. She had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 90 to 95 percent and accused was arrested on the very next day. 37. It is not the question of quantum of witnesses, but it is the amount of evidence that inspires confidence of the Court. It may happen with many number of witnesses or by a single witness or a circumstance or a material factor. There is no hard and past rule that there must be bunch of witnesses who have given the oral evidence running to pages. 38. In this case, the incident happening at home, the accused does not give explanation regarding what he knew. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is illogical to expect more number of persons to have witnessed the incident. Barring minor discrepancies, it is the question of inspiring confidence by the oral evidence of the witnesses. Further, PW1-Rakshitha, cannot be expected to have photographic memory of incident, but she speaks about the substance. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, firstly, it is necessary to mention the said offence, which is as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 39. On considering the ingredients of the said Section, it could be concluded that the life of Jayamma/ victim was miserable, she was ill-treated and was subjected to cruelty by her husband. In this connection, the evidence of sisters PWs- 8 and 9 and PW12, mother are reliable, as their evidence inspire confidence. On considering the ingredients of the said Section, it could be concluded that the life of Jayamma/ victim was miserable, she was ill-treated and was subjected to cruelty by her husband. In this connection, the evidence of sisters PWs- 8 and 9 and PW12, mother are reliable, as their evidence inspire confidence. The death of Jayamma was a homicidal. 40. The main oral evidence need not be running to bundles of pages. On the date of incident, victim did not die, suffered injuries. The best form of evidence is given by herself. Formats, procedures do not hold the court so long the statement given by the witnesses is credit worthy and consists of truth. 41. In respect of the statement made as per Ex.P7 by the victim on 25.01.2013, it has to be considered that the format or the procedure do not over ride the effect of substance of the statement that is treated as dying declaration as it spoke regarding the cause of death, thereby becomes a substantive evidence. The substance gets more scope than the proforma or the procedure. 42. The dying declaration or the effect of Ex.P7 when has inspired the confidence of the Court cannot be brushed aside because of the factors that are not very much relevant for the circumstances. Further, the statement made before the police by the complainant thereby stating the guilt of the accused in unequivocal terms for having set fire to her who is the prime witness, in fact, a best witness, being the victim and the injured. 43. Further, it is the veracity of the statement with reference to circumstances has to be considered and accepted. In case of discarding dying declaration just because of corroboration from other angle if it is going to cause miscarriage of justice it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form sole basis of conviction unless, it is corroborated. The Apex Court has held that the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence in the case of S.Paneerselvam Vs. The Apex Court has held that the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence in the case of S.Paneerselvam Vs. State of T.N., (2008) AIRSCW 4787, wherein, it is held as under: "(A) Criminal P.C.(2 OF 1974), S.162 Statement before police- Admissibility Stand of accused that deceased put himself on fire and accused actually took him to hospital- Statements made by deceased to doctors that deceased voluntarily told each of them that he had set himself on fire- One police official was present when statement was made by deceased However, large number of relatives of deceased, more particularly, witness who had taken him to hospital were also present Statement before doctors cannot be discarded as not voluntary." 4. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the deceased had put himself on fire and in fact, all the accused persons immediately quenched the fire and had taken him to the Government Primary Health Hospital, Ammapet, where PW3 doctor was available. The deceased made a voluntary statement to PW3 wherein he categorically stated that he had poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire. Thereafter the deceased with the burn injuries was taken to the Medical College Hospital where also he made similar statement to PW4 the doctor. Subsequently, another doctor PW6 examined him where also he made similar statement. Therefore, it was submitted that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting them relying on the purported dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to the Revenue Divisional Officer(PW14) on 16.12.1992 i.e. four days prior to his death. The same was nothing but a tutored one. The High Court held that the so. 7. XXX XXX 8. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as in dictated in Smt.Paniben V.State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817 (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (See Munnu Raja and Anr.v.The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 2 SCR 764 ) (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (See State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and Qrs., AIR 1985 SC 416 ) and Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 164 ) (iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. [See K.Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. V. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994 (iv) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. [See Rasheed Beg v.State of Madhya Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 264 ] (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration, the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [See Kaka Singh v.State of M.P., AIR 1982 SC 1021 ] (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [See Ram Manorath and Others. [See Kaka Singh v.State of M.P., AIR 1982 SC 1021 ] (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [See Ram Manorath and Others. V. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 654 ] (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.[See State of Maharashtra Vs. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617 ] (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.[See Surajdeo Oza and Ors.v.State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1505 ]. (ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. [See Nanahau Ram and Anr.v.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 912 ]. (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [See State of U.P.v.Madan Mohan and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1519 ]. (xi) Where there is more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. of course, if the plurality of dying declarations could be held o be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted.[See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 ]" 44. Further the quantum of oral evidence running to pages or more number of witnesses are not the compulsory yardstick to decide a criminal case like the present one. The incident occurred at home at 7.30 p.m. and there was no occasion for witnesses to be present. The concept of appreciation of oral evidence does not endorse on number game. The acid test would be, whether the evidence whether documentary, oral or circumstantial inspire confidence of the Court. In the present case, evidence of PW1 Rakshita in the context and circumstances presents concentrated truth, regarding commission of offence charged against the accused. 45. The concept of appreciation of oral evidence does not endorse on number game. The acid test would be, whether the evidence whether documentary, oral or circumstantial inspire confidence of the Court. In the present case, evidence of PW1 Rakshita in the context and circumstances presents concentrated truth, regarding commission of offence charged against the accused. 45. When the case was registered, it was for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC and as Jayamma did not recover from injuries despite being hospitalized, however, burn injuries of 90 to 95% got aggravated and formed into Septicemia and caused her death on 29.01.2013. Invariably it is the accused, her husband in the circumstances is being the reason for her murder. 46. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity or defects in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge to interfere with the same. The prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt has proved the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC. The appeal is devoid of merits. It is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 30-01-2015 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in S.C.No.155/2013 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are hereby confirmed.