MANDIRAKONAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 by THE Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Thuthukudi upholding the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.227 of 2002 by THE Assistant Sessions Court, Thuthukudi is now under challenge.

(2.) THE crux of the prosecution may be summarised as follows:- P.W.1 Vanniyan is a resident of Tiruchendur and the deceased Paechiyammal was given in marriage to the accused in the year 1995. At the time of marriage, she had been given 35 sovereigns of gold jewels. Due to wedlock, the deceased had given birth to three children. After marriage, both the deceased and the accused had lived together in Meingyanapuram and betwixt them, frequent tussles had emerged. THE accused had directed the deceased to go and fetch Rs.50,000/- from her parents. On 29/3/2000, the deceased had come to the house of P.W.1 and reported that the accused had frequently, beaten her by way of demanding money. P.W.1 had alleviated the deceased and send her back to her marital home. On 4/4/2000, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 had come to know that his daughter had passed away by committing suicide in the house of the accused. P.W.1 had gone there and subsequently, examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the statement given by him had been marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.10 the Head Constable attached to Meingyanapuram Police Station had received a complaint from the accused on 4/4/2000 at about 7.00 a.m., and he registered the same in Crime No.57 of 2000 under Section 174 of THE Code of Criminal Procedure and the complaint given by the accused had been marked as Ex.P.11 and the First Information Report had been marked as Ex.P.12. THE investigation had been done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. P.W.11 the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken up the investigation. After receiving the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer for changing Section of law he had given a requisition to the Court. On 4/4/2000, he had gone to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P.12 and also drawn a rough sketch marked as Ex.P.14. After completing investigation, he laid a final report against the accused under Sections 498 A and 306 of THE Indian Penal Code on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner had emphatically contended that in the present case, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent witnesses had been examined and further, the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged demand of dowry and both the Courts had erroneously found the accused guilty under Section 498 A of THE Indian Penal Code and under the said circumstances, the entire conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside.