M. Venugopal, J.

Preface

The Appellant/A.1 has focussed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 10.03.2014 in S.C.No.116 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Court), Erode.

2. The trial Court while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.116 of 2013 on 10.03.2014 at Paragraph 20 had observed that "in the result, the 1st Accused (Appellant) was found guilty in respect of an offence under Section 306 of IPC and imposed punishment of three years of Rigorous Imprisonment, besides imposing a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- in default of payment of fine, further one year Simple Imprisonment was imposed. The period already undergone by the 1st Accused (Appellant) was directed to be set of under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., Further, it was ordered that if the fine of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid, from and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be deposited in a fixed deposit in any one of the nationalised bank in the name of Arunkumar, rep. by P.W.4 (Sivalingam - Guardian) since the said Arunkumar (a mentally challenged child) was born to the 1st Accused (Appellant) and deceased Rajeswari. In fact, the trial court had acquitted the Appellant (1st Accused) in respect of an offence under Section 498 A and acquitted the 2nd Accused under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, since the same were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the benefit of doubt was given on their favour and ultimately they were acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C."

3. Challenging the Judgment dated 10.03.2014 in S.C. No. 116 of 2013 passed by the trial court, the Appellant/A.1 has filed the instant Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence in favour of the Appellant in a proper perspective, which had resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice.

Appellant's Contentions

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that father of the deceased, Rajeswari (P.W.4) in his evidence had stated that the deceased was a brave girl and also she was an intelligent person, but these vital facts were not taken into consideration by the trial court, at the time of passing the Impugned Judgment.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to state that there is no iota of evidence on the day of occurrence that the Appellant/A.1 had picked up the quarrel and shouted at the deceased, Rajeswari, as averred by the prosecution.

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the trial court should have seen that P.W.6 (Neighbour) categorically deposed that there was no such cruelty or fight took place at any point of time in the house of the deceased, as alleged by the prosecution.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the trial court had failed to consider that neither P.W.4, Father and P.W.5, Brother of the deceased had deposed that prior to the alleged occurrence the deceased made any complaint about the particular illtreatment.

8. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent/Prosecuting agency had failed to establish the allegations of cruelty or illtreatment or scolding caused to the deceased, Rajeswari at Appellant's instance.

9. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the ocular evidence tendered by the witness on the side of the Respondent/Prosecution were sketchy, unreliable and untrustworthy of acceptance and as such, the 'Judgment of Conviction' rendered by the trial court is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the improved version of evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 point out that the entire story in regard to the factum of alleged cruelty and behaviour of the Accused towards the deceased was built up during the time of trial (at the time of evidence being recorded before Court) and therefore, no conviction can