STATE Vs. PUDHU RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal appeal is at the instance of the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpet Town Police Station, Kanchipuram, questioning the legality of the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 304 (b) and 201 of I. P. C. in S. C. No. 618 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chengalpet dated 22. 12. 2004.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: the first accused is the son of the second accused. P. W. 5 is the native of Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk. They have two sons and a daughter by name Jayalakshmi. The first accused is the aunt's son of P. W. 5. The marriage between the first accused and Jayalakshmi took place on 6. 9. 1998 in a Kalyanamandapam at Gudalur. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded 50 sovereign of jewels and Rs. 2 lakhs cash. The parents of the deceased gave 35 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 50,000/- cash. Thereafter, there were demands during festive occasions like Deepavali and Pongal and every time, payments were made. Subsequently, there was demand for a motor bike by the first accused which was also made by the parents of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 6 Village President, but the demand continued. At one point of time, in the month of July 2000 Jayalakshmi came to her mother's house, when questioned, she replied that her husband demanded 15 sovereigns of jewels and asked her to come home with 15 sovereigns of jewels otherwise she should not come back. Subsequently, a panchayat was convened and thereupon the first accused and Jayalakshmi were living separately in a house belonging to P. W. 2 at No. 9, C. N. Krishna Street, Bharathi Nagar, Perianatham. P. W. 3 is the wife of P. W. 4. P. W. 4 was a driver attached to a Transport Corporation and he is also a neighbour of the first accused and P. W. 2 is the owner of the house. Jayalakshmi had told P. W. 3 that the first and the second accused are torturing her. On 17. 4. 2001 at about 11. 30 hours, P. W. 2 returned home from his work and called his wife by pressing the calling bell. The second accused who is his neighbour came and opened the main gate before P. W. 2's wife could come and open the gate. Then, P. W. 2 took his food and went to bed. At about 12'o' clock, P. W. 4 also came from his job, had his food and went to bed. At about 1 'o' clock, P. W. 3 noticed smoke coming from the down portion of her house where the deceased was living. Immediately, she informed it to P. W. 4 and he also came out and saw the same. Both of them came out of their house and pressed the calling bell of P. W. 2's house. P. W. 2 and his wife came out of their house. P. W. 2 found the first accused and the second accused standing outside the gate. When P. W. 2 found the house of the deceased locked, he asked the accused about the key but the first accused replied that the second accused had thrown away the key. Immediately, P. W. 2 who is the owner of the house, went to his house and took the duplicate key and opened the house of the deceased. He found the room full of smoke and also found Jayalakshmi dead on the bed with burn injuries. Immediately, Fire squad was informed. P. W. 8 Fire personnel came to the spot with his company at 1. 45 p. m. and they extinguished the fire. P. W. 1 the close relative of the deceased was informed. P. W. 1 came over there and he went to the police station at 8. 30 a. m. on 18. 4. 2001 and gave a complaint Ex. P1 to P. W. 12 the Sub-Inspector of Police who in turn registered a case in Crime No. 157 of 2001 for the offence under Section 174 Cr. P. C. The first Information Report was handed over to P. W. 13 Investigating Officer who took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, investigated and prepared the observation mahazar-Ex. P6 and also prepared a sketch-Ex. P13 and took photographs of the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased through P. W. 11 photographer. The photographs and the negatives were marked as M. Os. 2 and 3 series. The investigating officer recovered the materials objects under Ex. P7 mahazar. Since the marriage between the first accused and the deceased Jayalakshmi took place only 2 1/2 years before, the matter was informed to P. W. 10 Sub-Collector who came to the spot and conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P10 inquest report and recorded the statement of the witnesses and the dead body was sent to post mortem. P. W. 9, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Chengleput conducted post mortem and gave his opinion that the deceased died due to smothering and burn injuries and gave the post mortem certificate which is marked as Ex. P8. P. W. 13 converted the case of offence under Section 174 Cr. P. C. to that of Section 302 Cr. P. C. Further, he arrested both the accused and sent them to judicial remand and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied upon 14 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, one witness on the defence side was examined and four documents were marked.