SHUNMUGASUNDARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case of murder arising out of unmet dowry demand and consequent cruelty, portrays meticulous planning and neat execution of crime, inside the residential premises occupied by the spouses (deceased Gandhimathi and appellant Shanmugasundaram). We have evidence of burning of the deceased as well as medical evidence highlighting death of the deceased, arising out of asphyxia, as a result of manual strangulation.

(2.) Four charges were framed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1988, on the file of Court of Session, Periyar Division at Erode. The first charge indicated the appellant under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that ever since his marriage with the deceased that had taken place on 27th January, 1980, he not being satisfied with the quantum of dowry brought by her at the time of her marriage, was subjecting her to torture in order to extract more dowry from her. The second charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that while the appellant was living with the deceased at Door No. 16, E.V.K. Sampath Nagar, Erode, he demanded dowry, about 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, namely, 25-8-1986, and subjected her to cruelty by beating her in the premises mentioned about and further despatched her to her parents' house, as a consequence thereof, the third charge was framed under Section 302, I.P.C., for his having caused the death of Gandhimathi, at or about 1.30 a.m. on 25-8-1986 inside the residence by beating her indiscriminatelyand by strangulating her. The last charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, alleges that in the course of the same transaction, the appellant, knowing that an offence of murder punishable with death, stood committed by him, did cause disappearance of evidence of the said offence, by pouring kerosene over the dead body and setting fire to it. with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment.

(3.) On conclusion of trial, appellant was found guilty under all charges. Under the first charge, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. For murder, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, while under the last charge, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.