A 2 came forward to give companyfessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded by PW 13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of witness, pursuant to which A 2 has produced M.O.1 Nylon rope which was recovered under a recovery Mahazar, Ex.
Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 i.e. present appellant were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC.
On companypletion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they denied as false.
49/2002 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
A window was open through which he was able to see within 10 feet.
Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows The marriage between A 1 and Syed Ali Fathima hereinafter referred to as the deceased took place on 22.4.2001.
Appellant is A 7.
P 1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.
Prior to the occurrence, A 1 came from Mumbai.
The witnesses had number stated that she was present when the demand was made.
When PW 1 went upstairs, she found only the dead body of her daughter and PW 1 was able to see a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased.
A 3 and A 4 are the sisters of A 1 and A 5 is the mother and A 6 is the father of A A 7 is the aunt of A 1.
Later it was companyverted into one under Section 498 A and 302 IPC and the express FIR Ex.
In respect of offence punishable under Section 498 A the companyviction in respect of A 1 to A 5 and A 7 was companyfirmed.
A 2 is the brother of A 1.
At the time of marriage, PW 1 paid Rs.5,000/ and three sovereigns of gold jewels and after a period of two months, A 1 went over to Mumbai seeking for a job.
When PW 1 went to the house of the accused, the wife of A 2 locked from inside and informed that the deceased Fathima was upstairs.
P 9, the Inquest Report, wherein he opined that it was number a case of suicide but it was the death by homicide.
PW 2 was informed by PW 1 that there was a dowry demand from the side of the accused.
On receipt of the companyy of the FIR, PW 14 the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made inspection and prepared Ex.
In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied upon 13 exhibits and 3 material objects.
When he was witnessing the occurrence, A 2 saw PW 2.
At that time, there was a demand from A 1, A 2 and A 7, the appellant that 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.5,000/ towards Seervarisal for Ramzan must be paid immediately.
A marriage was scheduled to take place in the house of a neighbour which is next to the house of A 1 and hence on 8.3.2002, PW 2 came there between 11.00 a.m. and 12 numbern.
The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
All the other accused ill treated the deceased stating that the dowry demand was number met.
Necessary charges were framed.
A 7, the appellant, who was present at that time informed PW 1 that she can pay the said demand within a period of two months.
P 2 the observation Mahazar and Ex.
When he was just getting down through the stair case, he was able to see the house of the deceased Fathima.
Originally, the case was registered under Section 174 of the Code.
The accused examined three witnesses who were all Medical Officers through whom 5 exhibits were also marked.
He also made enquiries from the witnesses including the accused.
P 13 was dispatched to the Court.
PW 2 is closely related to PW 1.
He was chatting with the said neighbour.
P 12 the rough sketch.
PW 1 was summoned.
P 11, the FIR was dispatched to the Court.
706 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl.
PW 13 the Sub Inspector of Police was on duty on the day of occurrence.
On 6.3.2000 he came to Pallapatti and went to the house of PW 1.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there was numberevidence so far as the present appellant is companycerned to show that any demand for dowry was made by her.
PW 1 gave a companyplaint at about 1700 hrs which is marked as Ex.
PW 1 immediately came back and informed the relatives and proceeded to the Police Station.
Since PW 2 knew that there was a dowry demand, he decided to meet the deceased in her house for that purpose.
PW 10, the Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of the companyy of the FIR proceeded on the place and also companyducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Following the same, the dead body was subjected to post mortem by PW 9, the doctor attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur, who opined that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation about 24 36 hours prior to autopsy.
In appeal it was held that A 1 and A 2 were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, their companyviction as recorded by the trial Court was affirmed.
3399 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
But he companyld number meet anybody and he went over to his native place, Salem and returned on 9.3.2002.
Pending investigation, A 1 to A 6 were arrested.
The accused persons pleaded innocence and, therefore, trial was held and companyviction was recorded and sentence imposed as numbered above.
He also sent a companyy of the FIR to PW 10, the Revenue Divisional Officer.
On companypletion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the report.
PW 1 is the mother of the deceased.
Conviction of A 3, A 4 and A 5 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was set aside.
On seeing this, PW 2 was shocked.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant and upholding the companyviction for offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC recorded and imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C. No.1/2004.
Several persons who had faced trial had preferred the appeal.
At that time, A 1 and A 2 strangulated the deceased Fathima with a rope and A 3 and A 4 caught hold of both the arms.
Accused Nos.1 to 5 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC.
