N DURAI Vs. RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the aggrieved petitioner viz. , PW1 in S. C. No. 31 of 2002 on the file of the Sessions Judge/mahalir Needhimandram wherein the accused/respondents viz. , Ramamurthy and his mother Nagu alias Nagammal charged under sections 498a, 302 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (against A1) and under sections 498a and 302 read with 109 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (against A2) have been acquitted.

(2.) THE grounds alleged in support of the revision in substance are to the effect that Mahalir Neethimandram has not properly approached and appreciated the evidence available for the prosecution and the defence and that it has failed to take note of the fact that the deceased Valarmathi wife of the first accused died not due to fall and injury in the stomach and only due to ill treatment and fatal kick given by the first accused upon the stomach of Valarmathi and it has failed to note the absence of positive opinion of the post mortem doctor to show as if the death was only natural and that it has failed to take note of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 parents of the deceased Valarmathi attracting Dowry demand and consequent ill treatment resulting to death of the said Valarmathi and that the Mahalir Neethimandram has failed to frame charge under section 304 B IPC and thereby in all, if the said court had properly approached and appreciated the available evidence, it should have convicted the accused for the offence of dowry harassment and murder.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is to the effect that the first accused is the husband of the deceased Valarmathi and the second accused is the mother of the first accused and both the accused were torturing and ill treating the deceased Valarmathi through demand of dowry and 13 sovereigns of jewels were given at the time of marriage between the first accused and deceased Valarmathi by PW1 and the marriage took place on 16. 2. 1997 and the said Valarmathi was using to tell her parents viz. , P. Ws. 1 and 2 that she was being ill-treated by the accused on demand of dowry and the first accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/= for construction of house and the said amount also was paid by PW1 and the said Valarmathi gave birth to a child on 3. 3. 2000 and on demand made by the second accused for five sovereigns of jewels were given to the child and consequently, on 22. 4. 2001, information was received by P. Ws. 1 and 2 that Valarmathi had been admitted in the hospital and P. Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the hospital viz. , Hema Clinic, Nungambakkam and they were able to find Valarmathi suffering from acute stomach pain and later on, Valarmathi was shifted to Villivakkam Hospital and then she was taken to Korattur where Dr. Senthilvelan declared that Valarmathi has died and following that PW1 gave complaint to the Korattur Police Station marked as Ex. P14 and a case was registered in Crime No. 247 of 2001 under section 174 Cr. P. C and then it was altered into one of sections 498a and 304b IPC vide Ex. P9 and on the point of jurisdiction, FIR was transferred to Nungambakkam Police Station and on the basis of the transferred FIR, a case was registered by the Nungambakkam Police Station in Crime No. 447 of 2001 under sections 498a and 304b vide Ex. P10 and then the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the investigation and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri conducted inquiry and furnished his report vide Ex. P2 and lastly, after completion of investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.