JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 16.04.2015 made in S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode and set aside the same.)

1. The convicted accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 16.04.2015 made in S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Erode sentencing him under Sections 498 (A) I.P.C to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and Under Section 306 of I.P.C to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

3. The accused married the victim girl during the year December, 2011. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the victim girl, P.W.3 is the sister of the victim girl, P.W.4 is the brother’s son of the victim girl and the accused is the husband of the deceased. At the time of marriage, the accused was 40 years and the victim girl was 19 years.

4. On 08.11.2012, at around 09.00 a.m., P.W.1/father of the deceased has received a telephone call that his daughter has committed suicide by self-immolation. Then, he gave a complaint before the respondent police and based upon the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C was altered to Sections 498 (A) and 306 of I.P.C.

5. As stated supra, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased; P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the relatives of the deceased; P.W.5 to P.W.9 are the attestors of the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch; P.W.10 is the neighbout; P.W.11 is the Photographer; P.W.12 is the District Revenue Officer, P.W.13 is the Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem and given post-mortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P6, P.W.14 is the constable, who has accompanied the dead body, P.W.15 is the Special Sub-Inspector, who has received Ex.P1/complaint and registered Ex.P8/FIR and Exs.P16 and P17 are the Investigating Officers, who after investigation, had laid the charge sheet.

6. Based upon the oral evidence of P.W.13/Doctor, coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P6/Post-mortem certificate, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to self-immolation and committed suicide. Now this Court has to consider levied conviction and sentence as stated supra whether the conviction imposed under Sections 498(A) and 306 of I.P.C is sustained and if so, whether the sentence is excessive.

7. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 are being the family members, they are interested witnesses and their version in the Court would amounts to contradiction as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.16/Investigation Officer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following decisions.

(i) 2020 (10) SCC 200 [Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

(ii) 2019 (7) SCC 4359 Wasim Vs.State (NCT of Delhi)

(iii) 2017 (1) SCC 433 [Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab]

(iv) 2015 (9) SCC 639 [State of Kerala and others Vs.S.Unnikrishnan & others].

8. Heard both sides.

9. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant/accused got married with the deceased 10 months prior to the occurrence. During their marriage period, the accused/appellant often consumed alcohol and abused the deceased in filthy language and assaulted her, hence the deceased went to her parental home. Four weeks prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused went to P.W.1’s house and asked the deceased to come with him, but the deceased refused the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 compromised the deceased and brought her to the accused’s house. While so