JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. to setaside judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Chennai in S.C.No.87 of 2016 dated 06.03.2021 imposing conviction and sentence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC on the appellant and direct the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the appellant tobe refunded to the appellant , by allowing the criminal appeal.) Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.87 of 2016, dated 06.03.2021, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. 2. Totally, there are two accused and the appellant herein is arrayed as A1. The fact of the case is that the appellant/A1 is the husband of the deceased Suriya and A2 is the brother of A1. The deceased and the appellant/A1 loved each other and married without knowledge of their parents on 24.02.2014 and they had 8 months female child. A1 demanded motorcycle from the deceased to get it from her parents as a motorcycle was given to his brother from his mother in law''s house and harassed the deceased by beating her and also scolded her. Due to which, on 28.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased Suriya poured kerosene on her body and set fire on her body. Thereafter, she was admitted in the KMC Hospital and died at about 17.30 hours. 3. On the complaint given by the deceased while she was taking treatment a case was registered against her for attempting to commit suicide. After completion of investigation, Final Report has been filed before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai. After committal, the case was taken on file in SC.No.87 of 2016 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai. 4. Based on the materials, the Trial Court framed charges as against the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined, 15 documents were marked, besides one material object. 5. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they neither choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents. 6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined, 15 documents were marked, besides one material object. 5. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they neither choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents. 6. Having considered all the materials, the Trial Court acquitted the A2 from the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 is before this Court with this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 contended that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Admittedly, the accused and the deceased made love marriage and the parents of the deceased not accepted the marriage. They lived with accused family, thereafter, lived separately. The accused did not demand any two wheeler from the deceased. Due to petty quarrel, on 28.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased her self pored kerosene upon her and set fire. On seeing that the accused put water upon her and left the house. On the complaint given by the deceased while she was taking treatment a case was registered against her for attempting to commit suicide and thereafter, prosecuted against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Among all the 9 prosecution witnesses, no one is the eye-witness. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are father and mother of the deceased. P.W.3 selvam is the brother of the deceased. P,W.4 Selvi not supported the prosecutiojn case and she was treated as hostile witness. P.W.5, PW.6, P.W.7 are Doctors, who gave trteatment and conducted post morterm. P.W.8, Premkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case and conducted preliminary investigation. P.W.9, John Joseph, Additional Commissioner of Police, completed the investigation and filed the final report. P,W.4 Selvi not supported the prosecutiojn case and she was treated as hostile witness. P.W.5, PW.6, P.W.7 are Doctors, who gave trteatment and conducted post morterm. P.W.8, Premkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case and conducted preliminary investigation. P.W.9, John Joseph, Additional Commissioner of Police, completed the investigation and filed the final report. The Trial Court relied upon the statement given by the deceased (Ex.P.9) passed the impugned judgment. Since she died, her statement (Ex.P.9) was taken as dying declaration by the Trial Court. The alleged statement (Ex.P.9) ought not be given by the deceased as alleged by the prosecution, since the deceased was suffered more than 95% of burn injuries at the time of admitting her in the hospital. It is evidenced by the Doctors P.W.5 and P.W.6, which was supported by the Accident Register (Ex.P.6). The Magistrate, who went to take dying declaration, returned without recording the statement since the deceased was unconscious at that time. The statement, Ex.P.9, was not recorded by P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police in the presence of Doctors, who admitted her in the hospital or any one of the Doctor, who was present there at that time. Under these circumstances, the emerging of Statement, Ex.P.9 is suspicious one, based upon which, the appellant/A1 cannot be held guilty. The Trial Court, failed to appreciate the fact and mechanically accepted the statement of P.W.9 and found guilty. Apart from this Ex.P.9, there is no evidence against the appellant/A1 to connect the crime. 8. He further contended that even assuming that Ex.P.9 statement is proved, there is no evidence to show the direct involvement of the appellant/A1 for the abetment of commission of suicide of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the appellant/A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentece passed by the Trial Court is to be set-aside and pleaded to acquit the appellant/A1 from the charges. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police supported the judgment of the Trial Court and further contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement given by the accused i.e. Ex.P.9. In this statement, the deceased narrated as to why she committed suicide and appellant/A1 scolded her to go and die and in drunken mood, he assaulted her. Under these circumstances, she was forced to commit suicide. In this statement, the deceased narrated as to why she committed suicide and appellant/A1 scolded her to go and die and in drunken mood, he assaulted her. Under these circumstances, she was forced to commit suicide. Hence, the appellant/A1 is directly responsible for the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The Trial Court, rightly found the appellant/A1 guilty and convicted him and sentenced him as per law and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, pleaded to dismiss the criminal appeal. 10. I have considered the matter in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on records carefully. 11. The appellant/A1 is the husband of the deceased/wife. Admittedly, the accused and the deceased Suriya made love marriage and had 8 months old female child. The marriage took place one and half years before the date of occurrence, i.e. on 28.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m at her residence. Originally, the case has been registered against this appellant/A1 and his brother Kalaiyarasan/A2. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence found no evidence against the Kalaiyarasan/A2 and hence found him not guilty and acquitted him from the charges and found guilt against appellant/A1 alone for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased committed suicide as per the medical evidence of P.W.7 and Post Morterm certificate(Ex.P.8). I have gone through the prosecution witnesses. Elumalai(P.W.1) and Amudha(P.W.2) are parents of the deceased Suriya. Selvam(P.W.3) is the brother of the deceased. In their evidence, they have stated that the appellant/A1 and the deceased made love marriage and thereafter, they went out of the parent''s house and lived separately and they had no contact with them till she become pregnant. The appellant/A1 frequently consumed liquor and scolded the deceased and asked her to bring bike as his brother''s father in law and mother in law gave bike to his brother. This is stated by the decesed in the statement, Ex.P.9. There is no evidence to show that the demanding of bike as a dowry was disclosed by the deceased/wife to any one. Further in this Statement(Ex.P.9), the deceased stated that the accused scolded her that why you are living, go and die. This is stated by the decesed in the statement, Ex.P.9. There is no evidence to show that the demanding of bike as a dowry was disclosed by the deceased/wife to any one. Further in this Statement(Ex.P.9), the deceased stated that the accused scolded her that why you are living, go and die. The exact words are reproduced for better appreciation:- "TAMIL” As per Ex.P.9, these are the words used by A1, which abet the deceased to commit suicide. Apart from this statement, there is no direct evidence for the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence of suicide. 13. Now, the first consideration is whether Statement, Ex.P.9 is genuine one. On perusal of the evidence of Dr.Rasheetha Begam(P.W.5), who treated the deceased at hospital , deposed that the deceased was admitted as inpatient with 95% of burned injuries. At that time, the Doctor found the deceased was unconscious and also informed the same to Judicial Magistrate and the deceased was not in a position to give the dying declaration. Dr.Dhanalakshmi,(P.W.6), who admitted the deceased, during the cross examination admitted that the deceased was suffered with 95% of burn injuries. From the evidences of the above said two Doctors (P.W.5 and P.W.6), it is clear that the deceased was admitted with 95% of burn injuries. It is recorded in the medical record (Ex.P5) Accident Register . The alleged Statement(Ex.P.9) was recorded by P.W.8, Mr.Premkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, at about 8.40 a.m., In his cross examination, P.W8 admitted that at the time of recording the statement of the deceased, Doctors were present. But he has not mentioned the name of the Doctors and Nurses, who were present at that time. For better appreciation, the evidence is reproduced hereunder:- “TAMIL” Admittedly, P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, has not get the signature of any person at the time of recording the Statement of the deceased. Even though, it is not required legally, it ought to be obtained while the deceased was admitted as in patient with 95% burn injuries, to remove the suspicious circumstances, P.W.8 may get the signature of the Doctor, who was present at the time of recording the Statement. Therefore, the presence of the Doctor and Nurses at the time of recording the Statement(Ex.P.9) as stated by the P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, is highly doubtful. 14. Therefore, the presence of the Doctor and Nurses at the time of recording the Statement(Ex.P.9) as stated by the P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, is highly doubtful. 14. In this case, in Ex.P.9, while stating about the reason for committing suicide, she narrated about her love marriage one and half years back and lived separately, had created doubt. When a person suffering with 95% of burn injuries is not possible to narrate about the love marriage happened one and half years before the incident and other things about the demanding of dowry and etc., Further it is to be noted that it is recorded by P.W.8 as though the deceased stated that she was in conscious to say the “TAMIL” the police about the occurrence does not say that the statement is given with conscious. A person may say what he stated is true, but need not say with conscious. It creates a doubt whether the statement is really given by the deceased. 15. Apart from this, in the Statement(Ex.P.9), there is no evidence to show the direct involvement of the appellant/A1 to the commission of offence of suicide. It is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC. 16. Further, assuming that the Statement(Ex.P.9) is true one, the word uttered by the accused "go and die" are casual in nature, which are often used in the heat of the moment between the quarrel. Nothing serious is expected thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mensrea under Section 106 and 107 IPC. Therefore, the uttering of the aforesaid words during quarrel cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant/accused. 17. The moral conviction recording the guilt of an individual has no place in criminal jurisprudence. A Court of law is to get at the truth from the legal evidence placed before it and not as narrated by the prosecution.. In the case of this nature, the absence of any direct involvement of the accused person and the serious doubt about the alleged statement of the deceased Ex.P.9, would be unsafe to found guilt. An order of conviction can be passed only on legal evidence and not on unwarranted inferences. In the absence of legal proof, there can be no legal criminality. An order of conviction can be passed only on legal evidence and not on unwarranted inferences. In the absence of legal proof, there can be no legal criminality. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court is unsupported by the evidence on record. The prosecution fails to prove the charges against the appellant/A1 and the he is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.87 of 2016 by the judgment dated 06.03.2021 are hereby set aside. The appellant/A1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount if paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.