LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-160

V.KUPPULAKSHMI Vs. JAIPRASANTH

Decided On August 26, 2016
V.Kuppulakshmi Appellant
V/S
Jaiprasanth Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in CMP.No.645 of 2015 in SC.No.248 of 2015 dated 18.03.2016 allowing the discharge petition filed by the A4/present petitioner from the charges.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in this case, the trial Court without analysing the entire evidence discharged A4, as if there is no incriminating materials available for framing of charges against him. The trial Court without analysing the evidences of LW1 to LW3 have categorically implicated the accused and there was a specific allegations found in the Sec. 161 statement of the above witnesses. The trial Court compiling with the evidence of LW1 to LW3 with the evidence before the Revenue Divisional Magistrate, erroneously discharged A4 from the offences. The trial Court failed to look into sections 304B r/w.113-B of Indian Evidence Act, which presume the guilt of committing the offence of dowry death by any person who has been proved to have subjected a married women concerned soon before her death to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with dowry. The learned counsel further contended that there are sufficient materials available on the side of the prosecution to frame charges against A4, but the trial Court without appreciating the evidence wrongly compared with the other evidence and analysing the evidence at the stage of framing charges itself comes to a conclusion. In view of the above, the trial Court has erroneously discharged the accused from the charges and the learned counsel prays this Court to allow the criminal revision by setting aside the order of discharge passed by the trial Court against A4.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent/A4 vehemently contended that the trial Court after perusing the entire evidences produced on the side of the prosecution correctly come to a conclusion that there is no valid incriminating materials available against A4, on the side of prosecution. Hence, the trial Court clearly discharged A4 from the charges and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the revision petition.