SHANTHAKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner/A1 against the Judgment dated 27.02.04 made in C.A.No.49 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Vellore confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudiyatham made in S.C.No.149 of 2000 dated 06.06.2001 THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against the Judgment dated 27.02.04, in C.A.No.49/2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Assistant Session Judge, Gudiyattam in S.C.No.149/2000 dated 06.06.2001.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused married the deceased-Shanthi, on 15.09.96, as arranged by their parents and both of them were living together as husband and wife, at Nellorepettai in Gudiyatham Taluk. While so, on 27.02.97 between 2.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m., the deceased was found drowning in a lake in the village, which was noticed by PW6 and on hearing the alarming voice raised by the persons including her husband the deceased was rescued from the lake but subsequently, she died.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that as per Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, there shall be a presumption of guilt if it is a dowry death and as contemplated under Section 304(B) IPC, the Court shall draw the presumption of guilt in case of dowry death until the contrary is proved by the petitioner/accused. THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the medical evidence and the evidence of eye witness would probabilise that the deceased could have accidentally fallen down into the lake and get aberrations and other symptoms of drowning.