The necessity to prove intentional aid by the accused for conviction under Section 306 of IPC and the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District dated 11.11.2019 in S.C.No.43 of 2018.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District dated 11.11.2019 in S.C.No.43 of 2018.

2. The appellant herein is arrayed as first accused in the above referred case. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The other 3 accused, who are arrayed as A-2 to A-4 are tried for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC. By a judgment dated 11.11.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 9 months. Further, the other accused are all acquitted from the charge under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC.

3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the first accused / appellant is before this Court, by way of filing the present Criminal Appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows;

4.1. P.W.6-Munusamy is the father of the deceased Rekha and P.W.1-Selvarani is her mother. Before the occurrence, both the appellant and the deceased fell in love with each other. Later, after lodging a complaint before the Hosur Women Police Station, the appellant along with accused nos.2 and 3 approached the parents of the deceased and fixed the date for his marriage with the deceased. However after sometime, the appellant refused to marry the deceased saying that she is an illiterate lady. Before the said occurrence, the deceased became pregnant and afterwards, she aborted the foetus. In the said sequence of events, during the relevant point of time around 12.00 noon, while at the time P.W.4-Murugan and one Manogaran were found available, the deceased Rekha came there and told to P.W.4 as due to the misunderstanding with the first accused, she consumed poison, and requested to save her life. After hearing the same, P.W.4 admitted the deceased in the Krishnagiri Government Hospital, but on the next day, i.e. 23.02.2021 around 10.00a.m. the said Rekha had died. Immediately, P.W.4 informed the death of Rekha to the parents of Rekha and her relatives. After hearing the news from P.W.4, P.W.1 Selvarani came to the Hospital and after seeing the dead body of the deceased Rekha lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1] before P.W.9.

4.2. P.W.9-Senthamarai, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgur, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.6. After registration of the F.I.R., she visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, she prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch under Ex.P.2 and P.7 respectively. She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. During investigation, she found out that before the occurrence, the appellant herein being the lover of the deceased demanded to pay a dowry of Rs.60,000/- for solemnising the marriage with him. In this regard, both the appellant and the deceased decided to consume poison and in order to commit the same, both of them went to the Nizar gate area and by using two tumblers, they mixed water with poison. Later, after consuming the poison by the deceased, the appellant thrown away the poison. After knowing the same, the deceased Rekha abused the appellant and assaulted on his cheek, and then only P.W.4 admitted Rekha in the hospital. In the meanwhile, after investigating the case as above, P.W.9 prepared an inquest report under Ex.P.8. Further, she altered the Section of law in