The learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of appellant.
On 26.05.99 night after watering the field and when I came to the house around 5.00 a.m. my wife was found dead and immediately I companyveyed the information to all.
It was furthermore alleged that as the demand of dowry companyld number be met, a blank promissory numbere was executed by him on affixation of a revenue stamp.
Within a short time after I went there the police arrived and the father in law and mother in law of the accused arrived around 9o clock.
The deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home on 26.5.1999 at about 1100 p.m. On the request of the appellant, Chinnaraj P.W. 3 went to the village Thallakuttaipudur, which is said to be situated at a distance of 18 miles from village Ennamangalam, to inform the parents of the deceased.
The First Information Report for short, FIR was lodged in regard to the aforementioned incident at about 1100 a.m. in Vellithiruppur police station.
In view of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses, the High Court, in our opinion, companymitted a serious error in arriving at a companyclusion that he did number possess any land whatsoever.
his prior to autopsy.
P.W.8 Anbazhagan is Head Constable in Vellithiruppur Police Station.
P.W. 6 Thiru Karunakaran is the Village Administrative Officer who witnessed preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the recovery of the material objects M.Os.1 and 2.
After the arrival of father in law and mother in law of the accused they were enquired by the police.
W. 11 Sivakumar, Sub Inspector in his evidence companyld number say at what time he had arrived at the place of occurrence when a pointed question was put to him.
My mother in law and father in law demanded that the properties should be settled on my child but I refused by stating that I will protect my child.
P.W. 11 and P.W 13 are the Investigating Officer.
Myself, and my wife along with my parents were living happily.
P.W.1 Muthusamy and P.W. 2 Easwari are the parents of the deceased P.W.3 Chinnaraj had been residing close to the house of the appellant.
W. 7 Charles Mohan is a photographer, who had taken photographs of the scene of occurrence.
May be due to smothering.
I am innocent.
P.W. 1 categorically stated that appellant had three acres of land.
On the basis of the said information, FIR was lodged against the accused for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It was number brought to numberice that pillow was a soft one or number.
P.W.9 Ganesan is Grade II Constable in Vellithiruppur Police Station.
No saliva, blood and tissue cells were found in the pillow numberscratches, distinct nail marks, or laceration of the soft parts of the victims face was numbericed.
The Tahsildar had made the enquiry but I do number remember the date.
The finding of the High Court that appellant had to prove title of his land ex facie is incorrect.
Prior to the arrival of the father in law and mother in law of the accused the police enquired me, and also the neighbours.
They arrived at about 900 a.m. in the next morning.
The said statement was companyroborated by P.W. 3 in his evidence, stating I went and companyveyed the information to her mother and again returned where the wife of the accused was lying and he companyld be around 4 or 5 a.m. I am number aware as to who had companyveyed the information to the police.
P.W. 3 also accepted that land of the appellant is almost by the side of his land.
The State preferred an appeal thereagainst.
The companyduct of the accused that he had all along been present and the opinion of the Doctor did number satisfy the tests laid down in the authoritative book of Modi, it was held Further the evidence of Medical Officer P.W. 10 having mentioned that the reason for the death of the wife of the accused was on account of asphyxia but the same is discrepant with the Medical Book.
He knew the appellant as well as the deceased P.W.4 Sakthivel and P.W. 5 Senniappan were examined by the prosecution to prove that when the deceased had been staying with her parents about three months prior to the date of occurrence, a companypromise was allegedly entered into in the house of P.W. 1 for the purpose of bringing her back to her matrimonial home.
P.W.14 Muthusamy is Deputy Superintendent of Police who later succeeded W.13.
The FIR is based on a written report wherein it was alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and or harassment at the hands of her husband and in laws as sufficient dowry had number been given in her marriage.
P.W. 2 in his evidence, stated While, ourselves along with the relatives reached the village of my son in law it would be 6.00 or 7.00 a.m. While we went there the police were present, who had enquired the villagers and ourselves.
Before the learned Sessions Judge, fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
P.W. 10 Dr. Ranjini who did post mortem on the dead body P.W. 11 Sivakumar is a Sub Inspector of Police P.W.12 Srinivasan companyducted inquest on the dead body P.W. 13 Manoharan is Superintendent of Police in the Madurai Civil Supply CID Section.
FINAL OPINION The death is due to Asphyxia.
After the marriage, they were living at Village Ennamangalam.
No bruising or laceration was found in the lips, gums and tongue.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2005, the High Court while affirming the view of the trial companyrt with regard to the order of acquittal of appellant of the charges under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, recorded a judgment of companyviction and sentence against him under Section 302 of the IPC opining that its findings were unreasonable.
B. SINHA, J. Appellant got married with Baby alias Sokkayyal the deceased in the year 1996 at village Thallakuttaipudur.
Hence, as and after thought they had foisted the false case against me.
