IMPORTANT POINT
A judgment of acquittal can be interfered with if two views were possible or the judgment was wholly unreasonable or perverse.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Appellant got married with Baby alias Sokkayyal (“the deceased”) in the year 1996 at village Thallakuttaipudur. After the marriage, they were living at Village Ennamangalam. The deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home on 26.5.1999 at about 11:00 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. They arrived at about 9:00 a.m. in the next morning.

The First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) was lodged in regard to the aforementioned incident at about 11:00 a.m. in Vellithiruppur police station. 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 not been given in her marriage. It was furthermore alleged that as the demand of dowry could not be met, a blank promissory note was executed by him on affixation of a revenue stamp. On the basis of the said information, FIR was lodged against the accused for commission 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.

2. Before the learned Sessions Judge, fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. 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. 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 compromise was allegedly entered into in the house of P.W. 1 for the purpose of bringing her back to her matrimonial home. 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.

P.W. 7 - Charles Mohan is a photographer, who had taken photographs of the scene of occurrence. P.W.8 - Anbazhagan is Head Constable in Vellithiruppur Police Station. P.W.9 - Ganesan is Grade II Constable in Vellithiruppur Police Station. 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 conducted inquest on the dead body; P.W. 13 - Manoharan is Superintendent of Police in the Madurai Civil Supply CID Section. P.W. 11 and P.W 13 are the Investigating Officer. P.W.14 - Muthusamy is Deputy Superintendent of Police who later succeeded P.W.13.

3. The learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of appellant. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2005, the High Court while affirming the view of the trial court 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 conviction and sentence against him under Section 302 of the IPC opining that its findings were unreasonable.

4. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant for assailing the judgment of the High Court would contend:

i. The cause of death of the deceased cannot be said to have been caused by smothering.

ii. The circumstantial evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the High Court cannot be said to have formed a complete link in the chain to arrive at the guilt of the appellant.

iii. The police having already arrived at the Village Ennamangalam early in the morning had been admitted by P.W. 2 and P.W.3, no reliance can be placed on the FIR which was lodged by P.W.1 at 11:00 a.m. in the police station.

5. Mr. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of