RAMASUBBU Vs. LOGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code by the defacto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in S.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore against the judgment of the said court dated 30.08.2005 acquitting the first respondent herein/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Indian Penal Code with which he stood charged, tried and ultimately found not guilty. The second respondent herein was the complainant (investigating officer) in the said case.

(2.) AS the wife of the first respondent/accused by name Vijayalakshmi died of burns on 24.03.2002 at Thattampudur village within the jurisdiction of Karumathampatti police station, Coimbatore district, the petitioner herein/P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased lodged a complaint on 25.03.2002 on the file of the said police station expressing suspicion over the death of his daughter and a case was registered in Crime No.60/2002 on the file of the said police station under Section 174 Cr.P.C. AS the death occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted inquest and the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted investigation altered the case into one for offences punishable under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A IPC. On completion of investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a final report against the first respondent herein/accused, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and an offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the case was committed to the court below, necessary charges were framed and a trial was conducted pursuant to the plea of not guilty made by the first respondent herein/accused.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the petitioner/P.W.1, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned counsel submitted that the court below committed a grave error in not believing the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and eschewing their evidence in toto to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the first respondent herein/accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Though the said witnesses happened to be the interested witnesses, the court should have applied the test of careful scrutiny before ever deciding to accept or reject their evidence that the court below failed to apply the above said test properly to the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and the rejection of their evidence as unreliable suffers from serious infirmity resulting in miscarriage of justice that there had been a calculated attempt made by the investigating agency to screen the offender and the way in which evidence was led before the court below would establish the same that the documents recovered by the investigating officer during investigation, namely letters written by the deceased to P.W.1 had not been brought on record and the same would not only show the failure on the part of the prosecuting agency to bring-forth all material evidence to the court but also the failure on the part of the court below to notice the said discrepancy and infirmity and that all the above said aspects would point out that there had been miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/P.W.1, as there had been a miscarriage of justice due to the omission on the part of the investigating officer and a failure on the part of the court below find it out, the judgment of acquittal made by the court below suffers from serious defect and infirmity and for that reason alone the same should be set aside and either a re-investigation or a re-trial should be ordered.