VENKATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused is the revision petitioner herein who along with his father and mother as accused 2 and 3 were tried by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.61 of 1987 for the offences under Secs.306 and 498-A of the I.P.C. for allegedly causing his wife Sasikala to commit suicide on account of the perpetration of cruelty and demanding of dowry from her and her parents P.Ws.1 and 2 and that as a result of which she committed suicide on 31.1.1986 at the house of the revision petitioner herein and that on recording the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court, on the plea of the revision petitioner and other accused that they had not committed any offence as alleged, the trial court found the revision petitioner alone guilty under Secs.498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and whereupon sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.200, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on both the counts, but the sentences to run concurrently, however found his father and mother viz., A-2 and A-3 were not guilty and whereby acquitted them of all the charges and against which the revision petitioner has preferred the appeal in C.A.No.132 of 1988 before the learned Sessions Judge of Trichirapalli Division who on re-assessing the entire adduced evidence of both oral and documentary by the prosecution and the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the revision petitioner by the trial court and against which challenging the legality and impropriety of the same, the first accused/revision petitioner has sought the present revision as aforesaid.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case which are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions projected in this revision on behalf of the respective parties are stated as follows: P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased Sasikala who was given in marriage to the first accused during the year 1981 and that however, prior to the marriage there was a demand for some dowry by A-2 and A-3 from P.Ws.1 and 2 and it was also the prosecution case that the accused were demanding a scooter from P.Ws.1 and 2 as part of the dowry which was not accepted by them, but however refused bluntly. Even after the marriage there were however it appears certain demands from A-2 made to P.W.1 to provide certain articles, gold ornaments and house-hold utensils to be given to the deceased Sasikala and A-1 as evident from Exs.P-1 and P-2. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the said articles asked for in Exs.P-1 and P-2 were provided by them. But, even though not contending with this, it was the consistent claim of "P.Ws.l and 2 on one hand being the father and mother of the deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4 on the other hand, being the brothers of the deceased that there was a demand for more dowry from them and that since the same was not given, the first accused/ revision petitioner and the other two accused were not treating the prosecution parties and their family with every regard but contemptuously and that on that score, they were not even on the visiting terms. While that being so, a female child was born and according to the claim of the prosecution the delivery of which was attended by the P. Ws.1 and 2 in their own house and till that time, both the revision petitioner and the deceased were in the habit of visiting the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 once or twice in a month, while though they were living separately at different places. It was also the claim of the prosecution that the acquitted accused the revision petitioner herein and A-2 and A-3 were living in a different place but not along with the first accused and their daughter the deceased Sasikala. Admittedly, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, A-2 and A-3 were living at Musiri. Further, it appears from the prosecution claim that the revision petitioner was employed in H.R. & C.E., Department firstly at Tanjore and then got transferred to Trichy and were residing at kil Kon-daiyampettai a suburb of Srirangam town 3 kms. away from Trichy. Both the deceased Sasikala and the revision petitioner were living separately. Thus, it is seen that P.Ws.1 to 4 were living separately, A-2 and A-3 were living in Musiri separately and the deceased along with the revision petitioner/lst accused were living separately, all in different places. In this backdrop, it was the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 that through the brother of the first accused on 31.1.1986 evening P.Ws.1 and 2 were intimated that their daughter Sasikala expired and on reaching the house, P.Ws.1 and 2 found the dead body of Sasikala who committed suicide by hanging. On the evening of thesame day P.W.1 lodged a written complaint to the Srirangam Police Station, a case was registered and investigated. Consequently inquest and post-mortem examination were conducted by the Executive Magistrate in accordance with the procedural law and the case was investigated by the investigating agency and then followed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police who recorded the statements, seized P-1 and P-2,investigated the case, further from P.W.1 another complaint and then with the permission obtained from the authorities concerned, a final report was laid in the court of law against the revision petitioner and others as aforestated.

(3.) BUT, however, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences framed and tried against him for the offences charged against and accordingly he was convicted and the lower appellate court has also confirmed the same in its entirety. The legality and the propriety of the findings of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court in finding the revision petitioner guilty while acquitting the 2nd and 3rd accused of the same charges, was the main theme of attack projected by Mr.K.V.Sridharan, the learned counsel for the revisioner in this case. While projecting the above said main attack, the learned counsel drew my attention that both the courts below has erroneously approached the tendered oral and documentary evidence in this case through P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 and whereupon had a total misconception of law regarding the conviction against the revision petitioner for the simple reason that there is no iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution pertaining to either cruelty or ill-treatment of the deceased Sasikala by the revision petitioner from visiting the house of the prosecution witnesses. From the above said fact, the learned counsel persuaded me to appropriate the legal presumption enunciated under Sec.ll3-A of the Indian Evidence Act as well as the offences charged against the revision petitioner viz., Secs.498 and 306, I.P.C. Basing his attack thus, the learned counsel wants that the impugned judgment is to be set aside as clearly an error of law.