RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the accused in S.C.No.613 of 2003 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvalloor and he stands convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and he was also sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., and both the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant herein had preferred this criminal appeal.

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

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 are father, mother and sister of the deceased and they do not implicate the accused by their evidence. According to their evidence, there is no dowry harassment and there is no ill-treatment to the deceased. The trial Court, erroneously relying on Ex.P.13, the alleged dying declaration said to have been recorded by the learned Magistrate, convicted the accused. In both Ex.P.1-statement and Ex.P.13-dying declaration only the thumb impression of the deceased was obtained and there is no corroboration for Exs.P.1 and P.13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused further submitted that even according to Exs.P.1 and P.13, the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., are not made out and there was no dowry demand by the accused as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.