Mr. M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 in S.C.No.58 of 2012 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruppur.

2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruppur, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.58 of 2012 on 31.01.2014, had, among other things, observed that the prosecution had proved the charge levelled against the Appellant/Accused under Section 306 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt, by placing cogent evidences and by examining proper witnesses and filing necessary documents. Viewed in that perspective, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. by sentencing him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of said fine amount, he was further directed to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. The period already undergone by the Appellant/Accused was directed to be set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3. Challenging the correctness and legality of the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 in S.C. No.58 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/Accused has filed the instant Appeal by urging before this Court that the Judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court is against Law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the trial Court failed to appreciate that Muniammal (deceased) died on 10.07.2011 and her body was taken for cremation and at that place, the Respondent had seized the Muniammal's body and after that P.W.1 made a complaint before the Respondent stating that the said Muniammal died due to chest pain.

5. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent based on the Complaint – Ex.P.1 (filed by P.W.1) had registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the deceased Muniammal committed suicide by hanging because of the reason that she had illicit relationship with the Appellant before her marriage with P.W.3 and these aspects were brought out during the course of investigation and later the case registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was altered into Section 306 I.P.C. and a charge sheet was laid in this regard.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a stand that in the instant case, the interested witnesses had developed their case every now and then and this vital aspect of the matter was not taken into account by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned Judgment.

7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a plea that initially during investigation none of the witnesses had stated that the Appellant/Accused had contacted the deceased (Muniammal) on 09.07.2011 or 10.07.2011 and harassed her. In this connection, it is projected on the side of the Appellant that subsequently the witnesses had developed statements to attract an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. which would point out that the case of the Prosecution is a suspicious one.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Ex.P1 – Complaint given by the brother of the deceased (P.W.1) and points out that in the complaint, it was, among other things, mentioned that '.... on 10.07.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. in the afternoon, there was a chest pain and suddenly expired and obtaining the said information through phone, he started from Madras and came to his place' and subsequently, P.W.1, in his cross examination, had stated that his uncle's daughter approximately at 12.00 noon on 10.07.2011 gave information about the incident to commit suicide, but she had not informed about the reason for the suicide and as such, there is a discrepancy in regard to the averment made in Ex.P.1 – Complaint by P.W.1 and in regard to the evidence ten