S MUNIANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein is an accused in C.C.No.113 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Erode at Bhavani and he was acquitted by the trial Court from the charges under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. Challenging the said acquittal, P.W.2, father of the deceased in this case, had preferred this Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

(3.) MR.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased and they have categorically spoken about the ill-treatment given to the deceased by the accused and the dowry demand. Further, P.W.2 had stated that he had given a sum of Rs.10,000/- twice to the accused and also he redeemed the jewels of the deceased and also the jewels of the mother and sister of the accused. But the trial Court, without invoking the presumption that arises under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, had acquitted the accused. Further, the trial Court erroneously had relied on Ex.P.3, a letter said to have been written by the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial Court ought not to have placed reliance on Ex.P.3 for acquitting the accused since what is stated in favour of the accused by the deceased in Ex.P.2 is not admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.2 is not the dying declaration of the deceased and it does not contain any date.