- (1.) THIS appeal is preferred from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court at Pudukottai, dated 25.1.1994 made in S.C.No.7 of 1992, convicting the appellant/ accused under Secs.304-B(i)(2) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years for an offence under Sec.304-B(i)(2) of I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 for an offence under Sec.498(a) of I.P.C.
(2.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur, filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pudukottai, stating that during the period in between the date of marriage of the appellant with the deceased Ponnammal viz., 13.6.1990 and the date of her death viz., 4.12.1990, the accused 1 to 3 caused mental agony and cruelty to the deceased by beating and scolding her in order to get Seer Varisai from her parents; that on 4.12.1990 between 7.30 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. the deceased Ponnammal committed suicide by consuming poison, at the haystach shed within seven years of the marriage and thereby the accused 1 to 3 have committed offences punishable under Sec.498(a) and 304(B)(i) (2) of Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who found the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Pudukottai. The learned Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, after perusing the records and materials available and after hearing both sides, was of the opinion that there were grounds of presuming that the accused have committed the alleged offences and framed charges under Secs.498(A) and 304(B)(i)(2) of Indian Penal Code. When the appellant/accused was questioned by the Sessions Court, he pleaded that he was not guilty and made a request that the trial should be conducted. From the available materials and records, the acts of the case could be summarised as follows: The deceased Ponnammal was the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. The marriage between the first accused and one Santhi was made null and void. Under such circumstances, P.W.3 arranged the marriage of the first accused/appellant with the deceased Ponnammal in the year 1990. Though the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, the appellant refused to receive anything as Seedhanas, P.Ws.1 and 2 had given utensils worth Rs.1,500 to them. For about three months, the couples were living happily. After that the deceased often visited her parents" house. She told P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellant scolded her by saying that his father-in-law had not given anything as Seedhana and so also the accused Nos.2 and 3 scolded her. P.W.5, a neighbour of the accused know that the accused have scolded and have also beaten the deceased. On 4.12.1990, the deceased came to her parents" house and told them that the accused were demanding dowry. P.W.1 purchased a saree for Rs.165 to be given to the deceased. After P.Ws.1 and 2 returned from the paddy field, they found the deceased not available in the house. When they asked the children who were in the house, as to the whereabouts of their sister, the deceased, they were told that the brother-in-law of the children (appellant) had beaten the deceased as a result of which there was bleeding in the ear, and the appellant had taken the deceased to the hospital. On 4.12.1990 at about 7 30 a.m. when P.W.5 went to the paddy field, the appellant and the deceased were setting fire-wood for coal purposes. At that time, the accused No.3 asked the deceased to go away from their house. When P.W.5 returned from the paddy field, he saw the deceased placed under the haystack. On information, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused and saw their daughter dead, P.W.1 gave a complaint as found under Ex.P-2 to the Annavasal Police Station. P.W.10 Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.303 of 1990 under Sec.174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.11 Inspector visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-8 observation mahazar and Ex.P-9 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses P.W.8 and another Karuppiah. P.W.9 photographer took the photographs of the scene of occurrence as well as the dead body of the deceased. M.Os.1 and 2 are the respective photos. On 5.12.1990 at 12.10 p.m., P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer at Pudukottai, on receipt of Ex.P-5, First Information Report conducted inquest on the deceased in the presence of witnesses and pachayatars. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the Panchayat President Kaliamurthy as well as the accused. He sent Ex.P-7 report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeralur. On 5.12.1990, P.W.6 Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. Ex.P-3 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P-4 is the chemical analyst report. On 5.12.1990, P.W.11 Inspector examined P.Ws.1 to 5, 8 and 9 and recorded their statements. On receipt of Ex.P-7, P.W.11 altered the case into one under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and sent Ex.P-10 express report to the concerned Magistrate's Court. On 10.12.1990, at 8 p.m. he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. P.W.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police on receipt of Ex.P-7 report, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. He recorded the statement of P.W.7. On 17.12.1990, he recorded the statement of P.W.6 Medical Officer. After completion of the investigation P.W.12 filed the charge sheet on 6.4.91 as stated above. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/first accused, P.Ws.1 to 12 wore examined by the prosecution and Exs.P-1 to P11 and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked. After the evidence of the prosecution side, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C., and he pleaded innocence. No witnesses were examined on the defence side. After termination of the trial, the trial Court after hearing the rival submissions, found the appellant/first accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(3.) THE appellant herein stood charged before the Court below along with his parents ranked as A2 and A3, for the offences that he along with the other accused subjected his wife Ponnammal to cruelty which drove her to commit suicide and that her death occurred otherwise than under the normal circumstances within seven years of marriage due to dowry demand and thus they were liable to be punished under Secs.498-A and 304(b)(i)(2) of Indian Penal Code. THE trial Court after scrutiny of the available materials and consideration of the rival submissions, acquitted A2 and A3 of the charges, but found the appellant guilty as stated above, which resulted in this appeal. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P11 and M.Os.1 and 2. Out of the said witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 were treated as hostile and their evidence could not be relied on by the prosecution. The admitted facts are that the marriage between the deceased Ponnammal, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the first accused/appellant was solemnized in the year 1990, as found under Ex.P.1 that they lived happily in the marital home for a period three months; that she committed suicide on 4.12.1990; and she dies within a short span of six months from the date of the marriage. On 4.12.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed by a message that Ponnammal was seriously ill and hearing the same they rushed to Keezhapazhuvanchi village, the place of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 found their daughter dead and the body was placed under the haystack. P.W.1 proceeded to Annavasal Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P-2, to P.W.10 Head Constable, who registered a case under Sec.174 of Crl.P.C. for suspicious death. P.W.11 Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness, prepared Ex.P-8 observation mahazar and Ex.P-9 rough sketch. The scene of occurrence as well as the dead body were photographed by P.W.9 and they were marked as M.Os.1 and 2. On receipt of the first information report, P.W.7 Revenue Divisional Officer at Pudukottai proceeded to the place and conducted inquest on the deceased Ponnammal and concluded that it was a dowry death, as found under Ex.P-7. On receipt of the report of R. D.O. as found under Ex.P.7, through the Superintendent of Police. P.W.11 Inspector has altered the case to Sec.498-A I.P.C. P.W.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the further investigation, arrested the accused, remanded them to custody and filed the charge sheet as stated above. ;