LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-37

K RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

Decided On July 09, 2020
K RAMACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet at Kancheepuram District, convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and directed that the sentences imposed on him shall run concurrently and acquitted A2 and A3 of the offences put forth against them under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) and impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant/A1 has preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the accused A1 to A3, on 14.12.2008 and prior to the same, had been demanding and harassing the deceased Sasikala to bring Rs.50,000/- for purchasing motor cycle and consequently, Sasikala had committed suicide on 14.12.2008 by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze and on account of the dowry harassment caused by the accused A1 to A3 as aforestated Sasikala died by committing suicide within seven years of her marriage and the first accused also had compelled/forced the deceased Sasikala to have sexual intercourse with him and accordingly also had committed rape on her when she was alone in the house and thus, A1 to A3 had been charged under Sections 498(A) IPC & 304(B) IPC and A1 had been also charged under Section 376 IPC.

(3.) To sustain the prosecution charges, PWs 1 to 14 were examined, Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. Material Objects 1 and 2 were marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. qua the incriminating evidence and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the offences put forth against them and further, it is stated that the deceased Sasikala was mentally affected and she had herself committed suicide on account of her mental illness and there has been no illtreatment and harassment of the deceasedon the part of the accused by demanding dowry.