STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAVANI, ERODE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the State is challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in S.C. No. 126 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode acquitting the sole accused of offences under Section 498A I.P.C. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved over the acquittal of the accused, P.W.1 in that Sessions Case is before this court in Crl.R.C. No. 264 of 2001. As both cases arise out of the same Sessions Case, we are inclined to dispose of both the cases by this common judgment. Heard Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the appeal; Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the revision petition and Mr. P.M. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the accused in both the cases.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is (as per the charge) that in the context of dowry demand, the accused was treating his wife cruelly (Section 498A I.P.C); also subjected her to the demand of dowry prohibited under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in continuation there of, murdered her on the midnight of 26.5.1999 by smothering her with a pillow, resulting in death due to asphyxia. We summarise hereunder the case of the prosecution:

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue stating that the acquittal of the accused of all the offences for which he was tried is opposed to the legal evidence available on record. Stating that he is fully aware about the powers of the court in hearing an appeal against an acquittal learned Additional Public Prosecutor would still submit that from the evidence available on record, it is not possible to hold that the accused is innocent. On the other hand, according to him, the evidence on record unerringly points out to the guilt of the accused and his guilt alone and there is no other hypothesis possible on such evidence. Therefore his submission is that when the only conclusion that can be drawn on the legal evidence is that the accused is guilty, the judgment of acquittal based on surmises and conjunctures have to be necessarily interfered with. In stating that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses unerringly points out to the guilt of the accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor took us through the evidence of P.W.3 on its own merits; the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as a block evidence on their own merits and the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 as block evidence on their own merits. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 establish beyond doubt that all is not well between the accused and his wife and therefore their evidence definitely shows that the accused had a motive to kill his wife. Their evidence also shows, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that there was a panchayat in which the problem between the accused and his wife were attempted to be sorted out and only as an outcome of such sorting out, the deceased came to live with her husband, where a few days thereafter, she lost her life under suspicious circumstances. The medical evidence also clinchingly establishes the cause of death and when the death had taken place in the house of the accused himself and when he had come out with a false explanation that she died by consuming poison, this court can very well hold that when the accused has a duty to explain and when he comes out with a false explanation that itself would act as a chain of circumstance to complete the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 also shows that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused in respect of offences under Section 498 -A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.