SUSILKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court against the accused u/s. 498 (A) and 302 I.P.C. to undergo 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 3 months imprisonment, respectively.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short would be as follows: (a) THE accused was aged about 38 years who was searching a bride for his marriage and was contacting the parents of Varalakshmi since deceased and after completion of all the formalities of seeing the bride by the accused at the Omandur village, the accused took Varalakshmi for outing. THEy did not return to Omandur village and on 06.10.2006 Varalakshmi informed her parents about the marriage with the accused at Thirupathi Alamelu Mangapuram temple and when they returned to Omandur the parents of Varalakshmi also approved their marriage and both of them were living in the house belonging to one Vasanthapuram Selvaraj as tenants the accused developed consuming liquor and began to beat Varalakshmi demanding to pay for his expenditure and ill treated her by demanding dowry. In such a way he beat Varalakshmi on 06.12.2007 and he poured kerosene on her and lit fire on her and in the result she died on the spot. (b) THE neighbours gave complaint to the police and a case was registered in Cr.No.361/2007 by the respondent police and after completing the investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Vanur and the case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.8/2009 and after completing the procedural formalities the case was committed to Sessions court and the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Villupuram had taken the case on file in S.C.No.109/2009 and made over the case to Fast Track Court No.I for disposal in accordance with law.

(3.) WHEN the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution against the accused were put and was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, he had denied the evidence as false. However no evidence was adduced on his side.