RAVINDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, seven years rigorous imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively, vide Judgment dated 01.03.2011 in S.C.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant got married to one Pattukani in the year 1999. The appellant was a coolie worker. Two male children were born through the wedlock. While so, on 02.03.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., the appellant is said to have come home in a drunken condition and quarrelled with his wife and beaten her. He is also said to have used certain abusive expressions. Unable to bear the words uttered by the appellant, Pattukani committed self immolation. She was rushed to the High Ground Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. She was given treatment. But she succumbed to burn injuries on 08.03.2008 at about 02.00 a.m., The deceased gave a statement before the Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station at 10.00 a.m., on 03.03.2008 (Ex.P1). Based on the same, Ex.P12-FIR in Crime No.65 of 2008 was registered at about 04.00 p.m., for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Following the death of Pattukani, FIR was altered. Investigation was undertaken and after recording the statements of all the witnesses and after completing the usual formalities, final report was laid against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court in P.R.C.No.78 of 2008. It was made over to the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.14 of 2009. Three charges were framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, as many as 14 witnesses were examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked. M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also marked. The learned trial Judge, by the impugned Judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having regard to the evidence on record, he would not challenge the finding of guilt in respect of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. He submitted that he would confine his challenge only to the conviction of the appellant in respect of the offences under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. He further submitted that the children born through Pattukani are very much with the appellant and he is taking good care of them. He further submitted that the appellant had also been in prison for about eight months. He further submitted that even while sustaining the conviction under Section 498(A) of IPC, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.