The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's extra marital affair and demand for money constituted mental cruelty and harassment, leading to the conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C. However, the prosecution failed to prove intentional abetment or aiding of suicide, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 11.03.2014 made in C.A.No.91/2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the judgment dated 30.04.2008 made in S.C.No.128 of 2007 on the file of Court of Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and acquit the petitioner from the offence under Section 498A and 306 of I.P.C and pass orders.)

1. This revision petition is against the concurrent finding of the Courts below convicting the petitioner herein for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C (4 counts).

2. For sake of connivance, the petitioner herein is referred as accused.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused married one Prabavathi about 8 years prior to the incident. They had three female children. The accused developed intimacy with one Selvi (A2) and started causing cruelty to his wife Prabavathi. A1 eloped with A2 deserting Prabavathi (wife) and three children. They lived together in Bangalore for few years. Four months prior to the occurrence, they both returned to the Village. They forced Prabavathi to bring money from her parents to meet out their expenses. On 29.11.2001, she was beaten up and driven out from the matrimonial home by A1 & A2. Prabavathi left the house at Virudhampet along with three children came to Bagayam and pushed all her three children in the irrigating well and she also fallen into the well and committed suicide. Two days later, 4 dead bodies were found floating, by the well owner and same was informed to the police, leading to registration of the F.I.R.

4. On completion of investigation, final report was filed. The copies were furnished to the accused and case committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C as against A1 and charge under Section 306 r/w 34 I.P.C as against A2 were framed and the accused were tried.

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses, marked 20 Exhibits and produced 22 material object.

6. The Trial Court found A1 guilty of offence under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 I.P.C (4 counts). Acquitted A2 from charge under Section 306 r/w 34 I.P.C. A1 was sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo further period of two months R.I for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 6 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count (4 counts), in default, one month R.I for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C (4 counts)

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the 1st accused preferred appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, in C.A.No.91 of 2008. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, hence the present revision petition.

8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reasoning of the Courts below for convicting the accused for offence under Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C is not supported by evidence. On presumption that the Prabavathi committed suicide due to cruelty caused by A1 by having concubine is purely based on surmises. Neither for demand of dowry nor for having A2 as his concubine, the prosecution was able to produce reliable evidence.

9. To satisfy the ingredient of Section 306 of I.P.C., there must be an intentional aiding to commit suicide. Whereas, no witness for prosecution had spoken about aiding or abetting Prabavathi to commit suicide. Similarly, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased Prabavathi was subjected to cruelty either mentally or physically in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise or any other reason.

10. The Learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that there is no evidence to prove causing cruelty upon the deceased by the accused. Even if A1 had developed intimacy with A2 and eloped with her and returne