J. PETER RAJ Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 99 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No. II], Thoothukudi. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 29.10.2009, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant, as detailed below: -

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

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the the judicial dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under EX -P5 cannot be relied on, as it is the result of prompting and tutoring by PW -1 and PW -2. The learned counsel would further submit that at the earliest point of time, when she was taken to the hospital, the deceased told PW -15 that she sustained burn injuries in an accidental fire, while cooking with the help of a kerosene stove. This being the earliest dying declaration and since there was no chance for any prompting or tutoring, according to the learned counsel, the same should be given much weightage of. He would further submit that on receiving intimation from the hospital authorities, the Head Constable, attached to the Arumuganeri Police Station, had gone to the hospital, from where he recorded the statement of the deceased, on 15.07.2008, at 08.30 PM. The same has been marked as EX -D1. There is no denial of the same. In the said statement, the deceased had stated that she sustained burn injuries in an accidental fire, while cooking in the kerosene stove. This document has been suppressed. He would further submit that having suppressed the said document, thereafter, belatedly, on the basis of EX -P1, which was preferred on 17.07.2008, the present case has been registered. The learned counsel would further submit that PW -1, during cross - examination, has admitted that he made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, making allegations against the accused, his mother, sisters and all the other family members stating that they had killed the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel, PW -1 and PW -2 have taken revenge on the accused by tutoring the deceased to make the judicial dying declaration. For all these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the entire case of the prosecution should be disbelieved and thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.