JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri made in S.C.No.64 of 2013 dated 16.10.2014 and acquit the accused/appellants herein from the charge.)

The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.64/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The appeal is against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court.

2. On 13/04/2010 Madavan aged about 43 years, resident of Senachatiram, Gandhinagar, Hosur within the jurisdiction of the first respondent police station, gave the written information that, his daughter Dhanammal was given marriage to Kandavel, S/o Anumanthan 11 months ago. After marriage she came only twice to the parental home. On 12/04/2010 at about 6.00 pm she called over phone and told that her in-laws are ready to set separate family, they demand Rs.One lakh and a motor cycle. He pacified her to be quite and promised to her that he will come the next day and talk with the members of her husband’s family. His daughter Dhanammal kept the phone weeping. On 13/04/2010 at about 6.00 pm when he was at his home, his sambandhi ( son in law’s mother ) Malliga called him over phone and informed that his daughter Dhanammal is not well and asked him to rush to Duvarakapuri. When he went to her sambandhi house he found his daughter dead. On enquiry they informed that she hanged herself in the house and died.

3. The above said information was recorded in crime No.58/2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and taken up for investigation. Since it was unnatural death of a married woman within 7 years of her marriage, the Investigating Officer arranged for RDO enquiry. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar. Examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Recovered nylon rope (2 pieces) used by the victim to hang herself.

4. In the course of his investigation he came to know that Kandavel (the husband) and Mallika (the mother-in-law) jointly tortured the deceased Dhanammal demanding dowry. Unbearable of the said torture, Dhanammal committed suicide. Therefore, he altered the FIR for offences under Section 304 B IPC against Kandavel and Malliga.

5. On considering, the averments made in the final report are related to offences exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. On committal, after furnishing copy of the final report and the documents to the accused persons, the Assistant Sessions Judge, (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri) framed charges under Sections 304 (B) and 306 IPC and Section 4 B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998. The charges were denied by both accused. Hence, they were put to trial. Meanwhile, the Mahila Court for exclusive trial of offences against women was constituted at Krishnagiri, therefore the case was made over to Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri for trial.

6. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-22) and marked 12 exhibits (Ex.P-1to Ex.P-12). 13 material objects were produced. In defence, two witnesses were examined.

7. The trial Court held that the evidence placed by the prosecution satisfies the ingredients required for Section 304(B) IPC. Observing that the ingredient for offences under Section 4B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998 and the ingredients for offence under Section 498 A IPC is covered in Section 304 (B) IPC, the trial Court held that the conviction under Section 304 (B) IPC itself is sufficient for the other offences and sentenced A-1 and A-2 to undergo imprisonment of 7 years RI for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC.

8. The Appeal under consideration is directed against the above judgement.

9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the charges framed against these appellants