PALANISAMI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.367 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, whereby the appellants/A.1 to A.3 were convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and each sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment, the appellants were also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and each sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and they are also convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and each sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. A-4, A-5 and A-6 were acquitted of the charges.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the first appellant/A.1 died and hence, the Criminal Appeal abates as far as A.1 is concerned.

(3.) CHALLENGING the conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no evidence to show that there was demand of dowry and the excess jewels and further payment of money. That fact has not been considered by the trial Court. Learned counsel further stated that P.Ws.1 to 5 are the parents and brothers of the deceased Thamizhselvi and no independent witness was examined. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.17 Sub-Collector conducted inquest and enquiry. At that time, he has given an opinion that the death of the deceased was not due to dowry demand and this fact has not been considered by the trial Court.