IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2011
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY
Crl.A.No.1416 of 2003
Vinayagam @ Udaya Kumar ... Appellant
vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
Peerkkankaranai Police Station
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.478 of 2002 by judgment dated 29.08.2003, convicting the appellant herein under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo six months R.I.
For appellant : M/s.R.Rajasekaran
For respondent : Mr.N.Kumanan, G.A.(Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.478 of 2002 by judgment dated 29.08.2003, convicting the appellant herein under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and sentencing to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo six months R.I.
2.The accused is the appellant. The facts of the case as per the case of the prosecution, is that the accused and the deceased Vasanthi are newly married couples and their marriage had taken place on 06.09.1998. On 05.09.1999 at about 07.00 a.m. the accused bought a cup of tea and banana from the teashop and has given it to his wife, the deceased Vasanthi. Thereafter the accused has dropped the deceased Vasanthi at Kolappakkam Bus Stand. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that his sister Vasanthi is at Kolappakkam bus stand with giddiness. After receiving the information, P.W.1 went to the Kolappakkam bus stand in his TVS 50 and picked her up and came to their house. While travelling, the deceased Vasanthi had informed him that her husband asked her to go to her father’s house and left her in the bus stop. At the tea stall, he offered her tea from a tea shop along with a banana. She had that tea and the banana and only after having the tea and the banana, she felt giddiness. Thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased reached the house and there she vomited twice and then she died at. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.7 the Inspector of Police at 4.00 p.m. On the complaint, P.W.7 registered a case under Crime No.249/99. Ex.P.12 is the F.I.R.
3.P.W.3 and P.W.4 are known persons to speak about the community custom, P.W.5 is the Doctor who conducted the Post-mortem, P.W.6 is the R.D.O. Who conducted the inquiry to know dowry harassment, P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of police who received the complaint and registered the FIR, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the Investigating Officers.
4.Before the Trial Court on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined; Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were filed and no M.O’s. were marked. Initially, charge sheet was laid for offence under Sections 498(A) and 302 of I.P.C. The Trial Court after due trial convicted the accused only under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. as stated supra against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
5.The vehement contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. alleging that he has administered poison and he demanded dowry. He further contended that no such demand of dowry and harassment has been proved. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.
6.The learned Government Advocate, Criminal Side contended that the demand of dowry has been proved from the evidence of the witnesses. Hence, the appeal has to be dismissed.
7.From the evidence it is seen that the marriage had taken place on 06.09.1998 and the date of occurrence is 05.09.1999. The allegation on the accused husband is that on the fateful day, he offered tea and banana bought from the nearby tea shop. After consuming it she became giddiness and vomited twice at her father’s residence. The accused has been acquitted by the Trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. on the basis of the Ex.P.4 Viscera Report which categorically shows that no poison was detected. Therefore, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., however convicted the accused under Section 498(A) I.P.C.
8.Regarding the dowry harassment is concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are all the interested witnesses alone have been examined to speak about the dowry harassment. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he would say that jewels has been offered at the time of the marriage. While she was returning from the husband house only she fell sick. Even though the P.W.1 would say that there was some panchayat for demand of dowry, there is no evidence for that. P.W.4 is also a relative of P.W.1 who is also an interested witness and he is not a reliable person. On the basis of the evidences of P.W.1 and 2 alone, the accused could not be convicted. Since their evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, I am of the considered view that the charge under Section 498(A) has not been proved.
9.Therefore, considering these aspects, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside.
10.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant herein/accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in SC No.478 of 2002 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid is ordered to be refunded to him.
pri
To
1.Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Chennai