S. SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 24 of 2014, on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Fast Track), Karur. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 302 I.P.C. By Judgment dtd. 9/12/2015, the trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence under Sec. 498-A I.P.C., has convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, is consciously narrated below:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This is a case of suicide and immediately after the occurrence, the appellant/accused informed his mother and his superior over phone about the occurrence and the appellant/accused only sent the body in a private ambulance to the hospital. Further, he submitted that the saree near the body of the deceased Parvatham as noticed by P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.12 was not recovered by P.W.20. If the said saree was produced before the trial Court, damages in the saree will be proved and defence version will be probablised. P.W.20 - the Investigating Officer had deposed that the appellant/accused alone went inside the house and brought the saree and thus, the recovery of saree alleged to have been used for the commission of the crime was not legally proved. Therefore, P.W.20 failed to recover the saree which was found in the photograph - M.O.2 - series. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused asked his minor son, i.e., P.W.2 who was present in the place of occurrence, to bring scissors and had cut the hanging saree, but if it is so, there should be a cut in the saree, but the said saree was not produced. Whereas the saree which was produced as M.O.1 was not the one which was available in the place of occurrence and as per the version of P.W.2, there was a knot in the saree and initially, the appellant/accused tried to cut the saree, but he could not remove the knot in the saree. However, no damaged saree was produced before the Court. Even according to P.W.20, the appellant/accused produced the saree alleged to have been involved in the crime under Ex.P.4 - recovery mahazar. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, had stated that on the date of occurrence, two policemen came to the house and took his father along with them in a two wheeler. He had also stated that he was watching the television and he was examined only after six months and thus, it would create a reasonable doubt and moreover, the cross examination of P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. If it is so, the arrest and recovery on 18/4/2013 is totally false and thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, prayed for allowing this appeal.