GOVINDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused in S. C. No. 30 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, thiruvannamalai, has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) A-1 stood charged and tried along with three others, who were arrayed as A-2 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. and 201 read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge found A-1 alone guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. and awarded life imprisonment, and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. A-1 was also found guilty under Section 201 IPC. and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment, with a further direction that the sentences should run concurrently. The other accused, viz. , A-2 to A-4 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. and 201 read with 34 IPC. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: - 1. P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased, Vasanthakala. P. W. 2 and her husband along with the other family members were living in Melapunjai village. A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. A-4 is the mother of A-2. They were all living in Thenkarambalur vilalge. When A-1 went to Melapunjai village to attend a function, he developed intimacy with Vasanthakala, the deceased in the case. It came to the knowledge of P. W. 2 and other family members. They made an attempt that the marriage should be performed between the two. But the other accused were not amenable. Hence, the matter was brought to P. W. 20, the Head constable attached to Vanapuram Police Station and pursuant to a complaint, a panchayat was convened, where it was settled that marriage should be performed between A-1 and Vasanthakala. Accordingly, the said marriage was solemnized on 9th February 199 8. 2. After the marriage, A-2 to A-4 were started demanding dowry by way of cot, jewels, bureau etc. and began to ill-treat Vasanthakala. She informed the said demand to P. W. 2 and other family members. But P. W. 2 informed her daughter that she should obey the words of the elders in the family and also stated that she will give the sridhana articles demanded above soon. A-1 and Vasanthakala went to Melapunjai village to attend a function and they stayed there for five days and thereafter, left for their place. Since there was a drama in Melapunjai village, P. W. 2 invited her daughter and her son-in-law and accordingly, both of them went to Melapunjai village and on the next day, they left for their village. Thereafter, P. Ws. 2 to 4 went to moolakkadu to attand the death ceremony of one Thavamani. A-1 and Vasanthakala also came there. When P. Ws. 2 to 4 invited Vasanthakala and A-1 to their house, a-1 refused to go with them. Thereafter, P. W. 2 returned to her village. Again, p. W. 2 went to Moolakkadu to attend the 8th day ceremony of the said Thavamani and at that time also, she sent her son to the village of A-1 to invite her son-in-law and Vasanthakala to attend the said ceremony. On that day also A-1 refused to go with him and Vasanthakala alone came to the said place, where she stayed for a week. During that time, since Vasanthakala was not well, she had treatment at Thiruvannamalai. When she was medically examined, P. W. 2 came to know that Vasanthakala was pregnant. A-1 did not make any attempt to see his wife or to take her back to his house. However, by mediation, she was sent back to the house of A-1.

(3.) IN the meantime, P. W. 19, the Revenue Divisional officer, prepared his report under Ex. P-23 and sent the same along with the statement of the witnesses and the inquest report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, wherein he has stated that death was not on account of dowry harassment, since A-1 confessed that he has murdered his wife.