MATHIAZHAGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.208 of 2011, on the file of the District Mahila Court, Cuddalore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 194 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By judgement dated 19.10.2012, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; however convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Based on the above incriminating materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 17 documents and 5 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the complaint made by him to the police. P.Ws.2 and 3 have spoken about the marriage between the accused and the deceased; the demand for dowry made by the accused and the harassment caused to the deceased. They have also stated that the deceased was taken by the accused only three days prior to the occurrence. In respect of the alleged occurrence, they have not stated anything. P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.6 has stated about the extra judicial confession given to him on 5.4.2011 at 2.45 p.m. by the accused. P.W.5 has stated about the disclosure statement made by the accused, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.3 to 5 and also the recovery of the same. P.W.7 has not stated anything incriminating, as he has spoken only the hear say information. P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.9 has stated about the inquest conducted by him, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and his report. P.W.10 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.