THULASIRAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Karur, dated 6.8.2001, made in S.C.No.42 of 2000 convicting and sentencing A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and further convicting and sentencing to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.; and convicting and sentencing A.2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 498 (A) I.P.C., the accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the respective conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Court below after acquitting the accused for the charges framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has erred in convicting A.1 under Section 304-B and 498 (A) I.P.C. and A.2 and A.3 under Section 498 (A) I.P.C. It is also submitted that when the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 7 would not show that A.1 to A.3 have committed any cruelty against the deceased, drawing inference from the words uttered by A.1 in the presence of third parties and the conduct of A.2 and A.3 in not condemning A.1 in that regard would amount to guilty of offence under Section 498 (A) I.P.C. is not proper. LEARNED counsel also submitted that demand of Rs.50,000/- for carrying on a new business and that too when such demand has not been made soon before the death of the deceased and therefore, it is urged that Section 304 (B) I.P.C. is not attracted.