GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.90 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Pudukottai. He stood charged for offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC, in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 23.03.2015, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498(A) and 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution mainly relies on Ex.P1, the statement said to have been made by the deceased to P.W.18. The learned counsel would point out that the said statement cannot be believed for the simple reason that as stated by P.W.1, at the time when P.W.18 had visited the hospital, the deceased was not in a speaking condition even. He would further submit that there is no Doctor's Certificate, though P.W.12 was very much available in the hospital. The learned counsel would submit that for a woman, who had sustained 80% of injuries, giving such a long statement running to two pages, is not possible. The learned counsel would further submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 have only said that the accused insisted upon the deceased to get the Registration Certificate of the motorcycle. This would not go to prove the mens rea on the part of the accused, he contended. Thus, according to the learned counsel, absolutely, there is no evidence that the accused demanded dowry and harassed her to satisfy the requirements of Sections 304(B) as well as 498(A) IPC.