JUDGMENT :

(PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by judgment dated 20.01.2015 in S.C.No.105 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thirupur and acquit the appellant by allowing the appeal.)

1. The convicted A.1 is the appellant herein and he has preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 20.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thirupur, in S.C.No.105 of 2012, wherein, he was convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The above sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2 [i]. The case of the prosecution, against the appellant/A.1 and his parents (A.2 and A.3), as could be seen from the records, is that the appellant and the deceased were married on 22.02.2007 with a dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs and 75 sovereigns of jewels. The deceased was sent to her parents' home with a demand of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and the parents of the deceased were unable to meet the demand. On 10.06.2010, the deceased contacted the accused 1 to 3 over phone and wanted them to take her back to the matrimonial home but accused Nos.1 to 3 have refused and reiterated the demand of Rs.1 lakh and due to the mental agony, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 12.06.2010 at her parental home. Hence, the appellant and his parents were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 489(A) and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

[ii] The trial Court framed charges against the appellant/A.1 and his parents viz., A.2 and A.3 for the offences under Sections 489(A) and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.16. On behalf of the accused, the appellant/A.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked documents Exs.D.1 to D.28.

[iii] On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thirupur, had acquitted A.2 and A.3 from all the charges and held that the appellant/A.1 guilty under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. As against the said conviction and sentence imposed on him, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.

3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/A.1 would contend that the learned Sessions Judge had erroneously relied upon the alleged suicide note, which was not satisfactorily proved to be authored by the deceased and that the documents furnished to compare the suicide note, in fact, were not admitted documents. Therefore, the reliance made by the learned Sessions Judge on the alleged suicide note alone was erroneous. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/A.1 further contended that when the Court itself had concluded that there was no contact between the appellant and the deceased for more than 5 months prior to the date of incident, it is not understandable as to how the Court could give a finding that there was a harassment by the accused. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that Ex.P.3-Suicide Note, might not have been written immediately prior to the death and relied upon solely the said document to impose the conviction against the appellant.

4. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, a charge was framed under Section 304-B IPC, but conviction was laid under Section 306 IPC, without separate charge provided that the suicide was due to dowry demand. In the instant case, there was no dowry demand is the conclusio