RAVISHANKAR Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DHARMAPURI (CR. NO.1515/2004 DHARMAPURI POLICE STATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have focused the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 30.10.2009 in S.C.No.12 of 2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri.

(2.) The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.12 of 2007 on 30.10.2009, had, among other things, observed that 'on consideration of the pleas of the Appellants/A1 and A2 to the effect that they were not affluent and hence, prayed for awarding of lower punishment and further considering the facts of the case, after rejecting the pleas found the Appellants/ A1 and A2 guilty under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarded one year Rigorous imprisonment each, together with an imposition of fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine, further imposed simple imprisonment of six months. Likewise, the Appellants/A1 and A2 were found guilty under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposed with punishment of each six months Rigorous imprisonment and awarded a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine further imposed one month simple imprisonment. Similarly, in respect of an offence under Sec. 304-B, the Appellants/A1 and A2 were found guilty and they were awarded with a Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years each and was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000.00 each as fine, in default of payment of fine, each of them were directed to undergo default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. However, the Accused No.3 was acquitted, since the charges levelled against him were not proved.

(3.) Assailing the Legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 30.10.2009 in S.C.No.12 of 2007 passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/A1 and A2 submits that the trial Court had committed an error in convicting the Appellants/A1 and A2 and had failed to take into account a prime fact that the Respondent/ Prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.