SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is preferred by the petitioner/accused against the judgment, dated 19-5-2004 in C.A. No. 10/ 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/Frc, Vellore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur in S.C. No. 151/ 99, dated 25-10-2000.

(2.) The revision petitioner/accused is the husband of the deceased Umavathi, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are the brothers of the deceased. P.W. 3 is her mother. For about 3 years prior to the occurrence, the revision petitioner/accused married the deceased and it was an arranged marriage. Out of the said wedlock, they got one male child. As per the complaint given by P.W. 5, the brother of the deceased, after the marriage the revision petitioner and the deceased had frequent quarrel, due to their misunderstanding. Two months prior to the occurrence, she came to the house of his brother, due to such quarrel and one month prior to the occurrence, the dispute was settled by the panchayatdars and the deceased was sent along with the revision petitioner. On 26-2- 1997, during morning hours, P.W. 5 was informed that the dead body of his sister Umavathi was floating in an irrigation well, belonged to one Manicka Goundr, P.W. 8. The dead body was taken out from the well by P.W. 6. Based on the complaint given by P.W. 5, the case was registered originally under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subsequently; it was altered into 306, 1PC.

(3.) As per the charge framed by the trial Court, on 25-2-1997 at about 6 p.m. the revision petitioner/accused induced the deceased to commit suicide, since he had illegal intimacy with one Sivarajammal of Manavali Village, due to which, the deceased Umavathi committed suicide. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. L, Revenue Divisional Officer, that on 26-2-1997 at about 6 p.m. on receipt of the copy of the Express FIR, relating to this case, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He examined the brothers of the deceased, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, mother of the deceased P.W. 3 and other panchayatdars. As per the statement given by P.W. 5, brother of the deceased, there was no dowry harassment, according to him, it was a suspicious death. By his statement, he suspected the revision petitioner and the woman, with whom he had illegal intimacy and they, with the help of some other person could have caused the death.