MADESH @ MADESHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C. 96/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri and the appellants in Crl. A. No. 6/2008 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. This Criminal revision is filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court. It is not in dispute that the deceased Suseela, who is none else than the daughter of PW 1 Govindaraj and PW 2 Selvi and A1 Madesh @ Madeshan were in love with each other and Suseela during January 2003 eloped with Madesh and the same led to filing of criminal complaint by PW 1 and they were traced out and the complaint was withdrawn and they got married with the consent of their respective parents during January 2003 and after marriage, they had been living as husband and wife and led matrimonial life happily. While so, Suseela committed suicide by hanging herself on 13.10.2003 and the same led to filing of the present complaint by PW 1 Govindaraj against the husband and in-laws of the deceased and the same was registered as Kathikuppam Police station Cr. No. 822/2003 and the same was investigated into and culminated as S.C. No. 96/2006 arising out of the same is the present criminal revision, in which, the accused faced trial for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined PW 1 to PW 16 and produced Exs. P1 to P16 documents, besides MO 1 to MO 8 material objects. No oral witness was examined and Exs. D1 to D4 documents were marked on the defence side. The trial court on the basis of the available records, found the accused guilty for the charges framed against them and convicted and sentenced them. Aggrieved against the same, the accused preferred C.A. 6/2008. The lower appellate court, on the basis of the same set of evidence, confirmed the finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this court.

(3.) Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.