SELVAKUMAR Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, two in number, challenge their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in S.C.No. 31 of 2000 and in the judgment, they will be referred to as "A.1 and A.2" in the order they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge. THE charge against them is that, A.1 and A.2 demanded dowry from the deceased, Meenakshi, who is the wife of A.1 and on 11.1.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., A.2 poured kerosene over the body of Meenakshi and set her ablaze by throwing a lighted match stick and that A.1 shared the common intention of A.2 in causing the death of Meenakshi. THE learned trial Judge, while finding A.1 and A.2 guilty under Section 498-A IPC. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentenced each one of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment for the former and sentenced each one of them to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence. A.2, on being convicted under Section 302 IPC., was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment, while A.1, on being convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. under charge No.3, was similarly sentenced. THE present appeal challenges their conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts, which can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:- THE deceased is the wife of A.1. A.2 is the sister of A.1. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is the relative of the accused and P.W.8 is the uncle of P.W.2. THE deceased was given in marriage to the accused on 29.5.1998. At the time of marriage, though 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.10,000/- were demanded, P.W.1 was able to give only 7 sovereigns of jewels and promised to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- at a future date. He could not pay the amount as promised by him. After the marriage, when P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased to bring her to her parental home for certain ceremonies in the month of Aadi, A.2 asked him whether he will be able to buy a scooter. P.W.1 expressed his inability to meet the said demand. THE accused also told P.W.1 that unless the demands, which were earlier made, are made they will not permit the deceased to go along with P.W.1; but P.W.1 managed to convince them and brought her to his house. THE family members of the accused did not go to the house of P.W.1 to bring the deceased back to her matrimonial home and therefore, P.W.1 had to write a letter with a request to come and take back the deceased.

(3.) P.W.17, on taking up investigation in the crime, proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 11.1.19989 and at 8.30 p.m. prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.20, in the presence of P.W.6. At 9.25 p.m., he seized M.O.2, a plastic can, M.O.3, a match box, M.O.4, an un-burnt match stick, M.O.5, burnt match stick and M.O.6, a burnt saree piece under a mahazar Ex.P.4 attested by the same witness. He also seized M.O.7, cudgen leaves, under a mahazar Ex.P.5. He returned to the hospital and questioned Meenakshi and recorded her statement. The said statement given by Meenakshi is Ex.P.21. He questioned P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and 7 and recorded their statements and further investigation was taken up by P.W.22, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam.