RAJENDIRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein suffered by the Judgment of conviction pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC No.III), Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District on 21.02.2006 in S.C.No.290 of 2005 holding the Appellant guilty of offence under Section 304(1) IPC and convicting him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) As per the final report laid by the Inspector of Police, Srimushnam Police Station, Cuddalore District in Crime No.132 of 2005, the Appellant herein and another accused by name Selva Seemathipathy were charged for an offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., the appellant was also charged for an offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. by the judgment referred above the trial Court acquitted both the appellant and A-2 in respect of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. However, as stated earlier the appellant stood convicted for an offence under Section 304(1) of I.P.C. Though the appellant was also guilty of an offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. no separate conviction was passed for the said offence for the reason that the allegations in respect of charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is one and the same in respect of charge under Section 498 also.

(3.) On perusal of the records the appellant is ranked as A1 and A2 is his friend. The deceased victim of the case is the wife of the appellant. The appellant married the deceased 9 years prior to occurrence and out of the wedlock they were also placed with 2 children. Though the marital life is cordial for some years later severe mis-understanding and domestic quarrels arose between them on account of the alleged intimacy developed between the appellant and one of his colleagues. The mis-understanding stood to the level of registration of the criminal case against the appellant at the instance of the deceased in Crime No.2 of 2004 for an offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. Subsequently, the deceased left the marital home started staying at the parents home and later during the first week of May 2005, the appellant visited to the parental home of the deceased and falsified the deceased and assured her to lead cordial life and brought her back to the marital home.