- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 21.8.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2005, by way of which, the High Court has allowed the State appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 in Sessions Case No.618 of 2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Chengalpet, Kachipuram District, by which, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 34, 304(b) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC').
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as per prosecution are as follows: A. Padhu Raja (A-1), son of Smt. Angammal (A-2), got married to one Jayalakshmi (deceased), on 6.9.1998 at Gudalur. At the time of marriage the appellant (A-1) demanded 50 Sovereigns of jewels and Rs.2 lacs in cash, however the parents of the deceased gave 35 sovereigns of jewels and cash to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, there were persistent demand for dowry by the appellants from time to time, particularly on festive occasions. Those demands were even met. Appellant (A-1) made a demand for a motor bike which was also met by the parents of the deceased in the presence of several villagers, including the village Head, namely Bose, (PW.6). However, even after this, the demands continued. In July 2000, Jayalakshmi came to her parent's house and told them that a demand had been made by the husband for 15 sovereigns of jewels, without fulfilling which, she must not return. B. A Panchayat was convened and thereupon, the appellant (A-1), and Jayalakshmi (deceased), started living separately in a house belonging to Chandran (PW.2), at 9, C.N. Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar, Perianatham. Karthikeyan (PW.4) and his wife Mrs. Malliga (PW.3) were living in close proximity to the appellants. Jayalakshmi had told Mrs. Malliga (PW.3) on certain occasions, that the appellants had been torturing her. C. On 17.4.2001, at about 1 A.M., Mrs. Malliga (PW.3), noticed smoke rising up from the ground floor where the appellants and deceased were living. She immediately informed Karthikeyan (PW.4) and then also came out to ascertain the cause for the smoke alongwith her husband, Karthikeyan (PW.4). Chandran (PW.2) and his wife also came out of their house. Chandran (PW.2) found the appellants standing outside the gate. On being asked by Chandran (PW.2) about the key of the house, as the same was locked from the outside, the appellant (A- 1), replied that the second appellant had thrown away the key. Chandran (PW.2) went upstairs, brought a duplicate key and opened the door of their house. Chandran (PW.2) found the room full of smoke and Jayalakshmi lying dead on the bed, with burn injuries. The Fire Brigade was informed. Mr. Mahalingam, Station Officer, Fire Department Chengalpet, (PW.8) arrived at the spot with his personnel, at 1.45 A.M. and extinguished the fire. Mr. Ezhamparuthi (PW.1), a close relative of the deceased came to the spot upon being informed, and thereafter went to the Police Station at 8.30 A.M. on 18.4.2001 and made a complaint to Mr. Kotteswaran (PW.12), on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.157 of 2001 was registered. The said FIR was handed over to Mr. Durairaj (PW.13), the Investigating Officer who then took up the investigation. D. Durairaj (PW.13) recovered the dead body of Jayalakshmi (deceased), after taking photographs of the place of occurrence and also of the dead body of the deceased, through the photographer Balaji (PW.11). Durairaj (PW.13) also recovered all material objects and prepared the mahazar. E. As Jayalakshmi had died within 2-1/2 years of her marriage, the matter was reported to the Sub-Collector, Ms. Pila Rajesh, IAS (PW.10) who came to the spot and conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and a panchnama was prepared. Ms. Pila Rajesh (PW.10) also recorded the statements of the witnesses after which, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. F. Prof. Muguesan (PW.9), who is attached to the Govt. Hospital Chengalpet, conducted the post-mortem and opined that the deceased had died of smothering and burn injuries. G. The case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC and both the appellants were arrested and sent into judicial remand. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Before the trial court, both the appellants pleaded not guilty and, therefore, claimed trial. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, and relied upon 14 exhibits and 3 material objects. The defence also examined one witness, and relied upon 4 documents for the purpose of their defence. The Trial Court after the conclusion of the trial, upon considering the material on record, and after appreciating the available evidence, acquitted both the appellants vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2004. H. Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court and the High Court vide its impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced both the appellants, thereby reversing the judgment of the Trial Court, as referred to hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Dr. A. Francis Jullian, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the High Court committed an error by interfering with the order of acquittal as was recorded by the Trial Court. While reversing the judgment of acquittal, the High Court has not complied with the parameters laid down by this Court in such matters. This is because there is no direct evidence on any issue, and the case is one of circumstantial evidence wherein, several links are missing in the chain of events. The Trial Court recorded acquittal, as it came to the conclusion that there were a large number of material inconsistencies that went to the root of the case. There is also considerable embellishment/improvement in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. There was also an inordinate delay after the incident, in lodging the FIR. The appellant (A-1), had been arrested immediately, however, such arrest was shown to have taken place at 9 A.M. on 18.4.2001. There could have been absolutely no motive on the part of the appellants, to commit the murder of the deceased. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.;