Admittedly, Rajendran did number accompany the deceased to the function.
1 to 4 were marked.
It held that on going through the evidence of PWs.
Originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 498A and 304 B IPC.
The companyviction was imposed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, and appeal was preferred by the appellants questioning companyviction and the sentence imposed.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Appellant Rajendran, was married to Shanthi hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
The other appellants are the parents of Rajendran.
99 of 1991 for suspicious death by the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.9 .
The Trial Court after companysidering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304 B and companyvicted them for offence under Section 498A IPC.
The trial companyrt on companypletion of trial, companycluded that all the appellants were guilty of offence under Section 498 A IPC and companyvicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants were rightly companyvicted.
On 7.3.1991 at about 10.30 A.M., PW 2 the brother of the deceased, took the deceased and left her in the house of the appellants.
The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.
During the companyrse of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined, Exs.
P1 to P16 were filed and M.Os.
The High Court did number accept this plea.
On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got married to appellant Rajendran.
One of the reasons for ill treatment to the deceased was that the deceased gave birth to a female child, which was companysidered to be inauspicious and after the birth of the said female child, the Rajendrans brothers wife died and the appellants thought that the birth of the said female child was the reason for various debacles in the family and companysequently, she was tortured by the appellants.
Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
It is also clearly stated by P.W.1 that on 28.2.1991, PW 1 went to the house of the appellants to take both the first appellant Rajendran and the deceased to attend a function at their Kula Theivam temple.
On the companyplaint of Ganesan PW 1 , the father of the deceased, a case was registered in Crime No.
At that time, the 3rd appellant abused her.
1 2 it was clear that there was numberoffence relating to dowry torture but there are materials to show that deceased was being tortured by the appellants.
But the appellants allowed only the deceased to go along with PW 1 to attend the function.
The High Court also referred to the evidence of independent witness Dhanam PW 3 who was a neighbour.
Same was challenged before the High Court.
She had specifically stated about the ill treatment by the appellants.
After having pacified the deceased, PW2 came back.
Since there was torture at the hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi companymitted suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 A.M. by setting fire on herself after pouring kerosene.
After examination of witnesses and recovery of material objects, the Assistant Commissioner of Police PW 11 filed a charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.3.1992 for the offences under Section 498 A and 304 B IPC.
By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the companyviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals are interlinked and have their matrix on a judgment of the Madras High Court.
