SURESH RAJAVELAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.348 of 2005, whereby the appellant/sole accused stood charged under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 3 months S.I. under Section 498-A IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 302 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) THE accused/appellant is an Auto Driver by profession and he married the deceased Kanchana in the year 2005. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. THEy were residing at Amman Koil Street, Red Hills, Chennai. At the time of marriage, 8 sovereigns of jewels were given to their daughter and 2 sovereigns of gold were given to the accused. Subsequent to the marriage, the spouses were living separately. P.W.2 came to know that the marital life of the spouses was not happy. P.W.3 was the classmate and close friend of the accused. Subsequent to the marriage when P.W.3 met the accused, he informed P.W.3 that the fact that he was an impotent was known to his wife, as a result of which there was quarrel between them. P.W.3 advised him to go to the Doctor. P.W.4 is also a co-auto driver, to whom also the accused informed the same and P.W.4 also advised him to consult the Doctor. b) When P.W.5, the Senior Officer at Madras Port Trust, met the accused at about 9.30 a.m. on 25.1.2005 in front of his house, the accused unusually took his auto suddenly and proceeded. Usually, the accused spoke with P.W.5, but on that day, he did not speak anything and P.W.5 has told him to drive carefully. At about 10.00 a.m. on the same day, when P.W.3 was proceeding to his house from his S.T.D. Booth, he met the accused on the way and the accused seemed to be perplexed. When P.W.3 was standing in the bus stand, the accused stopped his auto there and called P.W.3 and informed him that there was a quarrel, in which he demanded 1-1/4 sovereigns of jewels from the deceased, but she has not answered for the jewels and called him impotent and hence he got angry and caught hold of her tuft and dashed her towards the floor and thereafter, he poured kerosene on her and set her fire. c) At about 12.30 p.m., when P.W.4 and P.W.5 came near the house of the accused, they saw a crowd gathered in front of the house of the accused and found the dead body of Kanchana with burn injuries. P.W.6, the owner of the house, also witnessed the same. At about 4.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed about the same and they rushed to the place of occurrence. At about 9.00 p.m., P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.56 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.19, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d) P.W.14, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, took up the investigation, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., and proceeded to the spot. He made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.9, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.20, the rough sketch. He recovered M.O.3, plastic can, M.O.4, match box and M.O.5, burnt match sticks from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.10, the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Department went to the scene of occurrence and collected smoke particles in the bottle. e) P.W.15 took up further investigation. On receipt of the intimation, P.W.13, the Revenue Divisional Officer, went to the Government Hospital, Royapettah and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.16, the inquest report. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. After the enquiry was over, Ex.P.18, report was given by the Revenue Divisional Officer that she died due to dowry cruelty. f) P.W.12, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.13, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to extensive burns 28 to 32 hours prior to autopsy. g) P.W.15 converted the case to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.21, the alteration report was sent to the court. Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 2.2.2005 at about 8.30 a.m. in the presence of the witnesses. He voluntarily came forward to give confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.1, pant and M.O.2, shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Further, the witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. All the material objects recovered were sent for chemical analysis. Exs.P.12 and 14, chemical reports were received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

(3.) THE court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.