MADHAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengleput, Kancheepuram District. The trial court by judgment dated 20.4.2009 convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC alone. The trial court has acquitted the accused/appellants from the charge under Section 306 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the trial court has imposed a sentence of rigourous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC., they have been sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 7 years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) On a complaint preferred by P.W.1 on the same day, P.W.9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Otteri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.130/2006 under Sections 174 (3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.2 is the First Information Report. He forwarded the First Information Report and complaint to court and then handed over the case diary to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. P.W.11 was the then Deputy Superintendent of Police. He took up the case for investigation. On 18.5.2006, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. He also prepared a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then, he recovered the Saree used as a ligature for committing suicide under Ex.P.3 Mahazar. M.O.1 is the said cotton saree. Then, he examined P.W.5 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Since the death occurred within 7 years from the marriage, he requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold inquest on the body of the deceased. P.W.12 was the then Revenue Divisional Officer of Chengleput District. On the request of P.W.11, he held inquest on the body of the deceased on 17.5.2006 between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. During the same, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. He submitted the inquest report under Ex.P.13. He forwarded the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. P.W.10 Doctor conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 19.5.2006. He found as many as 4 external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, he opined that the death was due to suicidal hanging. Continuing the investigation, P.W.11 altered the case into one under Section 498-A and 304 of IPC. On 1.6.2006, he arrested the accused 1 and 2 in their house. The other accused were absconding. On 5.6.2006, he examined P.W.10 Doctor and collected the postmortem certificate. He examined few more witnesses and finally, laid charge sheet on 18.5.2006 against the accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.