STATE Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the same, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- [a] P.Ws.3 and 4 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased Lavanya. P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.3. THE first accused [A1] is the son of the second accused [A2]. THE marriage between A1 and Lavanya was celebrated on 05.03.2003. At the time of marriage, 55 sovereigns of gold jewels were presented by P.Ws.3 and 4 to the deceased. After the marriage, A1 and the deceased were living separately at Sivaganga where A1 was then working as Motor Vehicle Inspector. THE marital life was initially joyful for one month. THEreafter, it is alleged that A2 started demanding dowry of Rs.1 lakh and a car to A1. THE deceased informed the same to P.W.3 over phone. Since persistently such demand was made by A1 at the inducement of A2, P.W.4 went up to the house of A1 and told him that in due course, they would satisfy the demand. In the meanwhile, the deceased became pregnant. In the fifth month of the marriage, a function was organised to celebrate the same as per the custom. It was held at the house of P.Ws.3 and 4. During the said function, again it is alleged that A2 demanded Rs.1 lakh and a car as dowry. When the deceased was six months pregnant, "Valaikappu" was celebrated. At that time also, it is stated that A2 demanded dowry. A child was born on 07.01.2004. 5 sovereigns of gold was presented to the child. Even thereafter, it is alleged that A1 and A2 persistently demanded dowry and the same was informed by the deceased to P.Ws.3 and 4. On 22.06.2004, the deceased was taken to the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 by A1 and left her. While the deceased was at the house of P.Ws.3 and 4, A1 again spoke to her over phone and repeated the said demand. On 01.07.2004, the deceased spoke to P.W.4 over phone and told that she could not alive anymore because of the torture meted out to her. When P.W.3 in turn spoke to A1 over phone, A1 repeated the said demand. On 02.07.2004, the deceased committed suicide on hanging. In this regard, P.W.3 preferred a complaint under Ex.P.5.[b] P.W.6 was then the Inspector of Police at Valasaravakkam Police Station. On receipt of Ex.P.5, complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.370 of 2004 for the offence u/s.174[3] Cr.P.C. and Ex.P.6 is the FIR. Since the death was within 1 = years of the marriage, he requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold inquest. He then forwarded the Case Diary to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation.[c] One Subbaiah, the then Revenue Divisional Officer held inquest on the body of the deceased and submitted a report, Ex.P.10. [Since Mr.Subaiah is no more, he was not examined at the lower court]. P.W.7, who was then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the spot and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.1, in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness. He prepared Ex.P.8, the rough sketch. THEn he examined P.Ws.3,4 and 5 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Since, from the statements of those witnesses, he came to understand that offences u/s.498-A and 304[b] had been committed by these 2 accused, he prepared an alteration report, Ex.P.9 thereby altering the FIR and altering case into one u/s.498-A and 304[b] IPC and forwarded the said report to the court. THEn he arrested the accused and send them for judicial remand.[d] THE Revenue Divisional Officer, on completing the inquest, forwarded the body for postmortem. P.W.2 was then the Professor of Forensic Medicine in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. On receiving the request from the Revenue Divisional Officer, he conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased on 02.07.2004 at 2.40 p.m. He found the following injuries:-"INJURY:- An incomplete brown colour ligature mark 27x2 cm seen over the frond and sides of the neck, on the front the ligature mark is above the thyroid cartilage on right side 7 cm below the mastoid process 4 cm below the left mastoid process and 7 cm below the chin. Absent on the back of the neck. O/D the area underneath the ligature mark is pale and parchmust. No evidence of haemorrhage in the soft tissue of the neck. Thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone are intact no other injuries seen."Ex.P.3 is the Post Mortem Certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased died of asphyxia due to hanging.[e] Continuing the investigation, P.W.7, examined the Revenue Divisional Officer and the doctor, recorded their statements, collected the reports and finally on 27.09.2004 submitted the final report u/s.498-A and 204[B] against the accused.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to analyse the evidences availabe on record, let me first state as to what is the scope of an appeal against acquittal. It is sell settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the initial presumption of innocence of the accused during the trial gets further strengthened by the acquittal recorded by the trial court. It has also been well settled that if two views are reasonably possible from out of the evidences available on record while dealing with the appeal against acquittal, it is not permissible for this court to substitute its views in the place of the view of the trial court. It is also the settled law that unless it is shown to this court that the findings of the trial court are perverse or patently erroneous, in general, this court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. Though it is permissible for this court and as a matter of fact it is obligatory on the part of this court to reappraise the entire evidence, even then, this court should be circumspect while analysing the said evidences to see whether the case falls within any of the parameters enumerated above.