JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to set aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 22.04.2015 passed in S.C.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Mahila Court (Mahila Fast Track Court) at Erode.)

1. The convicted accused is the appellant herein.

2. The accused is the husband of the deceased viz., Chitra. The accused originally married to a person and got one female child and he has re-married the deceased/Chitra after the death of his first wife. On the date of the marriage of the accused with Chitra (deceased), the child born through first wife was four years old.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has suffered financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- having spent medical expenses for his first wife and in order to clear the debt accrued for the medical expenses, he had demanded a sum Rs.72,000/- from the parents of the deceased/chitra and thereby, he has committed dowry demand which amounts to pay cruelty and having not able to pay the said amount, the Chitra has committed the suicide by consuming poison.

4. During the Trial, the parents of the deceased/Chitra were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2; brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.3; attestor of the witness viz., Ravi was examined as P.W.4; Photographer, who took photos of the deceased from the place of occurrence was examined as P.W.5; RDO enquiry was conducted by P.W.6 viz., Dr.R.Sugumar and marked Ex.P3/Inquest report and Ex.P4/RDO report; the neighbours of the deceased were examined as P.W.7, P.W.8 & P.W.9, to support the case of the prosecution in connection with the demand of dowry, they have turned hostile; P.W.12 is Dr.Jaganathan, who had conducted post mortem on the autopsy of the deceased Chitra, had issued Ex.P6/Post mortem report; P.W.13 is the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Department, who had given opinion as to the cause of the death marked Ex.P9/Forensic report and opinion expressed for the quarry raised by the police is marked as Ex.P8. Thereafter, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.13 are the police witnesses deposed regarding the receipt of Ex.P1/complaint and registration of FIR/Ex.P5; Observation Mahazar and alteration report were marked as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11.

5. The learned Mahila Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Erode has held that both the charges under Section 498(A) and 306 I.P.C were proved and accordingly laid conviction as follows:-

(i) Under Section 498(A) of I.P.C, three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(ii) Under Section 306 of I.P.C, 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.105 of 2014, dated 22.04.2015, convicted accused has preferred the Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. Ms.Yogalakshmi, represented counsel for Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and wrongly caused burden of proof upon the accused and also submitted that in RDO enquiry, P.W.1 to P.W.3 could not depose regarding any demand of dowry, ought to have held that their evidence is full of contradiction and crystal with ingenuity. Even as per Ex.P9/Forensic report, no poison was detected in the internal organs (all five internal organs). Later, on explanation given in Ex.P13 & Ex.P8, the Trial Court has held that the deceased could have died due to consumption of the poison. In any absence of any positive evidence as to the cause of death, namely by poisoning, the Trial Court has committed an error in assuming that there is a case of suicide and hence, prayed for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence.

7. Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that since the deceased was living with the accused, the Trial Co