PREMA Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is preferred against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 11.02.2003, recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram in S.C.No.206 of 2002.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the mother of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and she was examined as P.W.2 in the sessions case. THE first respondent / A1 is the husband, second respondent / A2 and third respondent / A3 are respectively mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. As per the prosecution case, on 02.03.2000, at about 10 p.m., P.W.1 was informed that the deceased Vijayalakshmi was not found in her matrimonial house, from 1 p.m. on the said date. After knowing the fact, P.W.1 and others were searching the deceased in various places, including the house of their relatives. On 03.03.2000, at about 6 a.m., an information, the dead body of Vijalakshmi was recovered from a well, meant for drinking water at Sadachivakkam Village. P.W.1 gave a complaint narrating the above said facts before the G4 Uthirameur Police Station, wherein he has stated that he had come to know that A1 use to demand dowry from the deceased, based on the complaint, the case was registered against the respondents 1 to 3 under Sections 498(A) and 498 (A) r/w 34 IPC and also 304(B) and 306 IPC. When the charges framed against the respondent / accused put on them, each of them pleaded not guilty.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused would contend that the first respondent / A1 and the deceased had married, after having love affair and hence, there was no dowry harassment, as alleged by the revision petitioner, and he further contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, so as to vitiate the prosecution case and therefore, the trial court held that the charges against the respondents / accused were not proved.