VELATHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge,Magalir Neethimandran (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, by judgment dated 19.09.2013 in S.C.No.222 of 2009 has convicted the appellant/A2 under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and acquitted the appellant/A2 of the offences under Sections 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 304(B) IPC and also acquitted A1 Raamoorthy @ Raja s/o the appellant / A2 and A3 VelusamyThevar, the husband of the appellant/A2 of the offencespunishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC. Impugning the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A2.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between A1 Ramamoorthy @ Raja and the deceased Shanthi was celebrated in the year 2006 and two months prior to 15.07.2007, A1 and the deceased Shanthi lived happily for two or three months and thereafter, A1 with the abetment of the accused A2 & A3 started demanding money as dowry from the deceased Shanthi several times and the dowry given by the deceased in a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been received and further, A1 to A3 by demanding dowry several times from the deceased caused ill-treatment and cruelty to her and the same led to the commission of suicide by the deceased and the deceased died by hanging and by consuming a poisonous liquid and as the deceased had died under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and as she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by A1 to A3, soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry, thus, according to the prosecution, A1 to A3 had committed the offences punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC.

(3.) To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P1 to 19 were marked. MOs 1 to 11 were marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C qua the incriminating evidence tendered against him by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they have not committed the offences put forth against them and on the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and No MO has been marked.