M SATHISKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.129 of 2006 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. By judgment dated 16.2.2007, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year-s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and further to undergo three years- rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months- rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. Challenging the same, he filed an Appeal in C.A. No.65 of 2007. THE learned Additional District, and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode by judgment dated 16.2.2008 while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence. Instead of three years- rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C., the learned Appellate Court reduced the same to two years. THE fine imposed for the said offence was confirmed. THE sentence imposed for offence under Section 498-A was also confirmed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:This case relates to the death of two persons. For the sake of convenience, the deceased Mrs. Akilandeshwari shall be referred as D1 and the deceased Devadharishini shall be referred as D2. D1 is the wife and D2 is the daughter of the petitioner/accused. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the foster parents of D1. P.W.2 is the natural mother and P.W.3 had settled down in Mangalore. THE marriage between the petitioner and D1 was solemnized in the month of March 1999. THEreafter, the petitioner and D1 lived together as husband and wife at Bodinaickanur. Out of the wed lock, D1 became pregnant. When she was 8 months pregnant, she allegedly called P.W.1 over phone and informed him that her family members were compelling her to undergo abortion since it was presumed that a female child would be born. Two days thereafter, D1 again called P.W.1 over phone and started crying. THE father-in-law of D1 informed P.W.1 that D1 was not well, on the same day, P.W.1 and P.W.5 went to the house of D1 and they found that D1 was lying on the bed. P.W.1 and P.W.5 were informed that D1 had fallen down from upstairs and therefore, she was taking rest. Immediately thereafter, D1 was taken to the hospital. While in the hospital, she informed P.W.1 and P.W.5 that she fell down because she was pushed by the accused from the stairs. THEreafter the life went on end D2 was born. At that point of time, P.W.1 and other family members came to know that the accused was only in a temporary job drawing a meager sum of Rs.1,500/- per month. THErefore, P.W.1 and his family members started to help D1 monetarily. One year prior to the occurrence, D1 and the accused went the house of P.W.2 at Mangalore. At that time, P.W.6 who is the nephew of D1 visited the house of P.W.2 with her husband. During the conversation, P.W.6 and her husband advised the accused to seek some other better job. THE said advice was not to the liking of the accused. He got angry and returned to Erode leaving D1 alone at Mangalore itself. After that, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 took D1 to Erode and persuaded the accused and his family members to take care of D1 and left her with them. Again on 19.6.2003, D1 spoke to P.W.2 over phone and informed that she was being harassed by the accused suspecting her fidelity. On 18.9.2003 at about 1.30 p.m., D2 committed suicide by hanging, after hanging D2 also. Both died instantaneously.

(3.) P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have spoken to about the ill-feeling and the alleged harassment meted out to D1 at the hands of the accused. They have narrated at length about the telephonic talks and as to what happened t Mangalore, etc. The prosecution mainly relied on the letter (Ex.P2) dated 8.9.2003 said to have been written by D1 which was 10 days before her demise. The said document can be taken as dying declaration falling within the scope of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court has mainly relied on P.W.1 to 3, 5, 6 and Ex.P2 to hold the accused guilty.