GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 498 -A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No. 195/1999, dated 14.1.2003, and aggrieved by the same, the appeal is filed.

(2.) THE appellant was charge sheeted for offences under Section 498 -A and 302 IPC for having ill -treated his wife, the deceased, with cruelty and also murdered her by pouring kerosene on her. During trial, on the basis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sessions Judge having acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC holding that the deceased committed suicide and the appellant did not abet the commission of suicide by his wife, ought to have held that the charge for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC was also not proved by the prosecution and erred in convicting the appellant for the said offence. The learned counsel submitted that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnised on 16.4.1997. The occurrence took place on 29.12.1997. It is not in dispute that the appellant's mother also sustained burn injuries in the same incident and she also died. He further submitted that no eye -witness was examined to prove that either the appellant or his mother poured kerosene on her and as a result of that, she died. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He also submitted that the deceased gave F.I.R. wherein she has clearly admitted that she committed suicide and her mother -in -law attempted to save her and in that process, she also sustained burn injuries and both of them were admitted in the hospital. Ex.P.7 is the statement given by the deceased at hospital to PW.9, Sub -Inspector of Police and that was the first statement given by her immediately after the occurrence. In the statement, she only stated that her husband, the appellant herein, suspected her fidelity and used to keep her in a room locked and on 29.12.1997, after her mother -in -law returned from the Tahsildar's office, the deceased wanted to go to her mother's house and that was not permitted by the mother -in -law and thereupon a wordy altercation took place between them and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her. He therefore, submitted that Ex.P.7, earlier statement given by the deceased would clearly prove that there was no harassment or cruelty committed by the appellant or his mother and suspicion of fidelity by the appellant and kept her in a locked room cannot be construed as cruelty with the meaning of Section 498 -A IPC and the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 also did not lead to the conclusion that the appellant treated the deceased with cruelty and without properly appreciating the statement of the deceased, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC.