J GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 7/2/2004 made in SC No. 55 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions court, Vridachalam.

(2.) THE revision petitioners before this court are PWs 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 55 of 2003, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, vridhachalam. P. W. 1, who lodged a complaint before the Neiveli Town Police Station about the occurrence which took place at the house of the second respondent herein on 28. 4. 2002 around 3. 00 p. m. The deceased was the wife of the second respondent and the sister of PW1. On the basis of allegations referred in Ex. P1 as well as the materials available on record the trial Court framed the charge against the second respondent herein under Section 498 (A) and 306 I. P. C. For proving the said charge against the second respondent on the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the defence none of the witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked. Taking into consideration the insufficient evidence adduced by PWs 1 to 3 the Trial Court decided the case not in favour of the prosecution. Whatever the allegations referred in the charge sheet were not specifically spoken and established by the prosecution witnesses PWs. 1 to 3. Even though it is stated that PWs 1 to 3 have spoken about the harassment as well as the ill treatment given to the deceased by the second respondent those facts were not supported by independent witness. As far as the illicit intimacy of the second respondent with one Selvakumari is concerned even though the said fact is referred under Ex. P1 and spoken by PWs 1 to 3 that fact was not at all corroborated by other witnesses for the purpose of establishing this fact and the allegation with regard to the illicit intimacy of the accused/second respondent with selvakumari. The Selvakumari was cited as one of the prosecution witness PW6. She was examined by the prosecution for the purpose of establishing that allegation stated above. However, PW6 Selvakumari has not spoken about the illicit intimacy with the second respondent/accused. Under such circumstances it is stated that since no materials are available in favour of the prosecution case for proving the harassment as well as the ill treatment which leads the wife of the second respondent to commit suicide. Therefore the learned Assistant sessions Judge, Vridhachalam decided the case not in favour of the prosecution as a result of that the accused was acquitted in s. C. No. 55 of 2003 on 7. 2. 2004. Aggrieved by the same the brother and the father of the deceased have approached this Court and filed this revision petition.

(3.) THE only point to be decided in this revision is whether any miscarriage of justice and defect in procedure is available in the prosecution case.