RANGANATHAN Vs. VEERAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ranganathan, examined P.W. 15 before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalput, in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1988, father of deceased by name Mandothari, has come forward with this revision, challenging the propriety and legality of the Judgement rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalput, in C. A. No. 11 of 1990 on 25-1-1991, setting aside the judgement of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalput and acquitting the respondents 1 to 3 herein of all the charges. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304 (B) I.P.C. before the trial Court. On finding the respondents 1 to 3 accused guilty of the charges, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C. and ordered the sentence to run concurrently.

(2.) The first respondent herein is the son of the second and third respondents and he was employed as a constable in the Railway Protection Force. The marriage of the first respondent with one girl by name Mandodhari, the daughter of the revision petitioner, was performed in Thiruverkadu Karumarimaman temple in the presence of P.W. 3 Gowri Ammal, her mother. Thiru, Ramamoorthi P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 Pugalendhi. Following this, both the spouses were living happily and out of their happy living, a female child was born to them. For the delivery of the above said child, it was alleged that none of the respondents/accused went and saw the mother and child. However, respondents 2 and 3 demanded a dowry of Rs. 15,000/- from the said Mandodhari and imposed the same as a condition for her coming and living with her husband.However, the presentations, namely, the Seervarisai' asked for by the respondents 2 and 3 were provided and with the same, the first respondent/accused with his wife settled his family at Changalput and both of them were living there. At about 12.30 p.m. on 14-4-1987, on the Tamil New Year's Day, the wife of the first respondent/accused poured kerosene upon her body and set fire to herself and came out of the house and rolled in the drainage water. On seeing this, a neighbour by name Neelakandan, P.W. 1 took her to the Government Hospital. This was also witnessed by P.W. 2 another neighbour at Chengalput. P.W. 17 Sub- Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation proceeded to Chengalput Government Hospital at 1.30 p.m. and recorded a statement from Mandodhari Ex. P. 22, obtained her left thumb impression, in the presence of the Medical Officer. On the basis of the statement, he registered a case in Cr. No. 189 of 1987 under Section 309, I.P.C. P.Ws. 8 to 10 are the doctors who speak about the examination of the deceased, death intimation, post mortem examination and so on. P.W. 7 is the Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest by examining the witnesses as contemplated by law. Other witnesses were examined by the police. The case originally registered under Section 309 I.P.C., was altered into the offences above referred. P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 are the investigating officers, who examined several witnesses. From this, as it was revealed that the said Mandodhari immolated herself by setting fire in a condition that she was not able to hear the cruelty perpetrated upon her demanding the dowry by all the accused though she was married already to one Anbazhagan and the said marriage was dissolved, after examination of all the witnesses and recorded the statement and completed the investigation, final report was filed. Respondent 1 to 3/accused were tried before the trial Court, for the offences above referred to.

(3.) When the respondents 1 to 3/accused were examined with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they have denied their complicity in the crime as a whole but however, they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.