Judgment:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Seven accused persons faced trial. Appellants-accused were numbers as A-1 and A-2 respectively in the trial Court and before the High court. Out of seven accused persons who faced trial A-1 to A-5 and A-7 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC) while A-1 to A-5 were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In appeal the High Court set aside the conviction so far as A3, A4 and A5 are concerned in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The marriage between the first accused and Syed Ali Fathima (hereinafter referred to as deceased) took place on 22.4.2001. A2 is the brother of Al. A3 and A4 are the sisters of Al and AS is the mother and A6 is the father of Al. A7 is the aunt of Al. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 paid Rs.5,000/- and three sovereigns of gold jewels and after a period of two months, the first accused went to Mumbai seeking for a job. All the other accused ill-treated the deceased stating that the dowry demand was not met. Prior to the occurrence, the first accused came from Mumbai. PW-1 was summoned. At that time, there was a demand from accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7 that 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards "Seevarisai" for Ramzan must be paid immediately. A-7 who was present at that time informed PW-1 that she can pay the said demand within a period of two months. P.W.2 is closely related to P.W.1. On 6.3.2000, he came to Pallapatti and went to the house of P.W.1. P.W.2 was informed by P.W.1 that there was a dowry demand from the side of the accused. A marriage was scheduled to take place in the house of a resident which is next to the house of the first accused and hence on 8.3.2002, P.W.2 came to the house between 11 am and 12 noon. He was talking to the said neighbour. Since P.W.2 knew that there was a dowry demand, he decided to meet the deceased in her house for that purpose. When he was just getting down through the staircase, he was able to see the house of the deceased Fathima. A window was kept open through which he was able to see within 10 feet. At that time, Al and A2 strangulated the deceased Fathima with a rope and A3 and A4 caught hold of both the arms. On seeing this, P.W.2 was shocked. When he was witnessing the occurrence, A2 saw P.W.2. Immediately, P.W.2 went to the place of PW-1. But he could not meet anybody and he went to his native place, Salem and returned on the next day i.e. 9.3.2002. On the day of occurrence, i.e., 8.3.2002, the son of the 2nd accused proceeded to the house of P.W.1 and informed her that she was to be taken to the house of the accused and took her in a two wheeler. When P.W.1 went to the house of the accused, the wife of A2 informed that the deceased Fathima was upstairs. When P.W.1 went to upstairs, she found only the dead body of her daughter and P.W.1 was able to see a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. When P.W.1 enquired, nobody gave any answer, but all laughed. P.W.1 immediately came back and informed the relatives and proceeded to the police Station. P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty on the day of occurrence. P.W1 gave a complaint at about 17.30 hours, which is marked as Ex.P.1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.49/2002 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code) was dispatched to the Court. On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.14 the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made inspection and prepared Ex.P.2- the observation Mahazar and Ex.P.12-the rough sketch. He also sent a copy of the FIR to PW-10, the Revenue Divisional Offic