JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.39 of 2014 dated 14.05.2015.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. Convicted accused A1 to A3 are the appellants herein.

3. This appeal is preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.39 of 2014 dated 14.05.2015.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused Kumerasan married to Poornima, the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.2. On 08.08.2010, she was found hanging in the parents home. Based upon Ex.P1/complaint given by P.W.1/father, P.W.13/Inspector of Police registered the case in crime No.1389/2012 and P.W.14/Investigation Officer, after conducting the enquiry filed charge sheet alleging that 304(B) IPC alternatively 306 and 498(A) of IPC.

5. After observing the formalities, the case was made over to learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.39/2014, and framed the charges against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 304(b) alternatively 306 of IPC.

6. Before the trial Court, the parents, brother, maternal aunt, grandmother, paternal uncle were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and independent witnesses were examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8, while the attestor of the Ex.P7/observation mahazar is examined as P.W.9. The ROD who has conducted an enquiry since the said Poornima died due to unnatural circumstances within, 7 years of marriage has conducted enquiry by ROD/P.W.10 and his report is marked as P.W.8 and P.W.9. P.W.11 and P.W.12 are Doctors, who have intimated about the death of the deceased and conducted the postmortem and issued postmortem certificate under Ex.P10. P.W.13 and P.W.14 are police witnesses, who had deposed regarding discharge of official duty in receipt of Ex.P1/complaint and registration of Ex.13/FIR and P.15/alteration report and filing of the charge sheet.

7. During the course of the investigation, the P.W.13/Ashokan, has collected the call details that was marked as Ex.P.16/Airtel call details and manual verification and photo claiming the seer is marked as MO.1.

8. The case of the prosecution is that immediately after marriage of four months, the deceased was not conceived and hence, medical test was conducted whereby, according to the prosecution witnesses, the accused is impotent. However, he has even tortured to P.W.1 to P.W.6 to give younger sister of the deceased-Poornima, for second marriage, which was refused.

8(i) Even for the marriage of younger sister of deceased-Poornima, the accused have neither attended the marriage nor attended the reception. While the deceased has stayed only for the two days for sister marriage, for marriage and prior day of marriage reception and hence, in view of the cruelty meted out by P.W.1 to P.W.6, the deceased has taken extreme steps to terminate herself.

9. The suggestive case of the defence is that even before the marriage while the deceased-Poornima was working as stenographer in the software company, had love affair with one co-worker by name Loganathan, even after marriage, there was frequent communication between one Loganathan and deceased which was found by A2 and A3. Subsequently, it was conveyed to P.W.1 and P.W.1 was also met the person in the park railway station and after enquiry, the relatives of P.W.1 had advised the said Loganathan not to interfere with the life of Poornima and hence, the deceased was sent to her parents home during the month of May’ 2012 and till her death August’ 2012, she was residing in her parents home and where she committed suicide and hence, the cause of committing of suicide is not that of as alleged by P.W.1, due to the interference and the control by exercise by the parents advising her not to keep in touch with said Loganathan, has resulted in suicide.

10. To substantiate charges, the prosecution