(1.) THIS revision is filed by prosecution witnesses 1 and 3 against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Sessions Judge, South arcot District at Cuddalore in C. A. No. 122 of 1990 dated 13. 3. 1991 setting aside and reversing the conviction and sentance recorded by learned Assistant sessions Judge, Villupuram in S. C. No. 191 of 1989 dated 31. 7. 1990, finding the second respondent guilty for the offences under Secs. 306 and 304 (b), Indian penal Code and thereby convicting the sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sec. 304 (b), Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE first revision petitioner who was examined as P. W. 1 is the mother and the 2nd revision petitioner who was examined as P. W. 3 is the father of the deceased Vennila. THEy were living in Alambadi Village , within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirukoilur. P. W. 2 Sankar is the son of p. Ws. l and 3 and he was studying 10th standard in a school situated therein and the deceased was his eldest sister. THE deceased was given in marriage to the accused in the year 1986 with presentation of seven sovereign of gold chain and other jewels each weighing one sovereign along with other'seer varisai'. Following this, the accused, viz. , the 2nd respondent herein and the deceased were living as husband and wife for a period of one year and out of wedlock, a female child was born to her at her parents'house in the village at Alambadi. After three months with the presentation of silver waist cord, anklet to the child and customary presentation, they have set the deceased and the child to the house of the accused. Even then, it was stated that the accused was demanding one wrist watch, and a cycle from the parents of the deceased. Because of that, when the deceased found it very difficult to be with her husband, the deceased came to the house of her parents and this factum was reported to P. Ws. 1 and 3. However, at the request of the accused/respondent, after 10 days, the deceased and her child returned back to the house of the 2nd respondent/at the behest of P. Ws. 5 and 6 who are said to have conducted some mediation. Accordingly, the respondent took the decreased and her child to his house and even then, his insistence to get the cycle and wrist watch from her parents continued. About 12 days prior to 12. 9. 1988, while he was Working in the Mariammal Koil building, P. W. 7 saw the accused chasing the deceased and P. W. 7 himself mediated and separated them. On 12. 9. 1988 at about 4. 00 p. m. , P. W. 7 was working at the house of the respondent and the parents of the deceased were working in front of their house by chaffing grains. At that time, the deceased Vennila came there with her child, followed by her husband/ respondent herein by saying'stop, otherwise I will kill you'. By saying this, the respondent snatched the child from her. Even then, Vennila went to the house of her parents. It was the claim of P. W. 7 that he came to know that Vennila consumed poison.
(3.) HAVING recorded the oral testimony of all prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence relied on by them, in the context of the defence taken by the accused, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offences with which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above referred to. Challenging the abovesaid conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge at Cuddalore and on the reappraisal of the entire legal evidence adduced, learned Sessions Judge held candidly that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and that therefore acquitted him by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.