S PRADAP CHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.483 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, and they stand convicted for the offences under Sections 498 A and 304 B I.P.C., r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and each one of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C., and further, each one of them was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 B I.P.C. and both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. No Separate sentence was imposed for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 have preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

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

(3.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 9 have categorically stated that the deceased informed them that she was beaten by both the accused in an intoxicated mood and both the accused have pledged the jewels of the deceased and they did not return the jewels. Even at the time when the marriage of the sister of the first accused was performed, whenever the deceased demanded for the return of jewels, she was assaulted by the accused. The cruelty committed to the deceased by the accused drove her to commit suicide. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that even if the ingredients of an offence under Section 304 B I.P.C., are not made out, the accused may be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.