The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible and reliable evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.95 of 2011 dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.)

1. The appellant/A1 in S.C.No.95 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry was charged and tried along with another accused for the offence under Sections 302, 498A, 201 IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 r/w. Section 34 IPC.

2. The Trial Court on conclusion of the trial acquitted A2 and convicted the appellant/A1 by judgment dated 14.03.2016 and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(1) r/w. 34 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC r/w. 34 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 34 IPC, one month rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act. The appellant was acquitted for the charges under section 201 IPC r/w. 34 IPC. Against which, the present appeal is filed.

3. In the Trial Court, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.33 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P44 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no witnesses examined and no documents marked.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 30.09.2010, Arumugam/brother-in-law of the defacto complainant informed that the defacto complainant's daughter committed suicide by hanging, the defacto complainant along with her son P.W.2 and relatives rushed to the hospital, initially to Government Hospital, Puducherry and later to JIPMER Hospital, where she found her daughter Ilamathy abandoned lying dead. Thereafter, she went to the respondent police and lodged a complaint. P.W.26/Sub- Inspector of Police registered FIR, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and examined the witnesses present there. Further, on coming to know that the death took place within 7 years of marriage, he submitted the FIR and other documents to the revenue authorities. P.W.32/Tahsildar conducted inquest, examined the witnesses and submitted his inquest report/Ex.P41. In this case, the deceased belong to Adi Dravidar community and the appellant/A1 belong to Vanniyar Community. The deceased was a Staff Nurse employed in Government Hospital, Puducherry where the appellant/A1 was employed as Assistant who was looking after the disbursement of salary. At that time, the appellant and the deceased fell in love, both their families agreed for the same and their marriage held on 28.06.2007 at Manakula Vinayagar Temple, Puducherry. During the marriage, customary sridhana articles, household articles, cash of Rs.1 lakh and a motor bike was presented. Out of their wedlock, they had a girl child aged 1½ years old. There was always quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant's mother/A2 on coming to know about the community of the deceased insulted her by calling the deceased by her caste name and harassed her. The appellant did nothing to resolve the issue and on the other hand joined hands with his mother and insulted the deceased. They also demanded the deceased to purchase a car and the deceased applied for a loan and purchased a case in her name which was used by the appellant. Immediately after the marriage, the deceased became pregnant which got aborted due to the physical assault by the appellant. After sometime, again she was pregnant the appellant insisted her to abort and when the same was refused by the deceased, the appellant a