JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment dated 10.07.2015 in S.C.No.164 of 1990 on the file of the V Additional Session Judge, Chennai.

This appeal is filed by the first accused in the case namely, Ravi sha, who is the husband of the victim in this case.

2. The gist of the allegations of the case of the prosecution is that one Shanthi Bai and the appellant herein got married on 04.09.1987. On 13.09.1989, the said Shanthi Bai died under abnormal circumstances and after the Post Mortem and Viscera Analysis, it was found that she died due to cyanide poisoning. Therefore, the case was registered in a Crime No.2030 of 1989 and P.W.17 took up the case for investigation and filed a final report holding that the appellant herein the husband and two other accused namely the parents of the accused and the in-laws of the victim one Narayansha and Gangabai as guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. After committal, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.164 of 1990, since the accused denied the charges and stood trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false and thereafter the trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the appellant/accused and by the Judgment dated 18.12.1991 while convicting all the three accused for the offense under Section 498 (A) IPC acquitted them for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4. An appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.01 of 1992 by the accused and the Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.485 of 1993 was also filed on the side of the victim with regard to the quantum of sentence as well as the acquittal of the accused in respect of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

5. By the Judgment dated 07.10.1998 in the above matters, this Court found that there were no materials to suggest the Commission of murder by the accused. However, it prima facie found that the victim committed suicide by consuming cyanide within two years from the date of marriage and prima facie the offence under Section 304 (B) being made out, set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the matter back to try the accused for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC.

6. Upon remand, the trial Court once again simply framed the charge under Section 304(B) and by a Judgment dated 31.08.2000 convicted the accused for both the offences 498 r/w 34 IPC and also for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC imposing a maximum sentence of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, once again all the three accused filed Crl.A.No.785 of 2005 before this Court.

7. Pending of the said appeal, the second and third accused(in-laws) died and the same was recorded and the appeal in as much as it relates to the second and third accused was closed as having abated. As far as the appellant/1st accused is concerned by the Judgment dated 04.04.2002, this Court found that the matter has been remanded prima facie finding that there are materials to try the accused for the offence under Section 304 (B), the same does mean simply framing charge and convicting the accused but as per the Provisions under Sections 216 and 217 of Code of Criminal Procedure further opportunity should be given to the prosecution as well as the accused to substantiate/defend the charge therefore once again set aside the Judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter back.

8. Upon remand, the prosecution did not choose to examine any further witnesses. On behalf of the accused, applications were filed to further cross examine P.W.1 P.W.4, P.W.10, P.W.13 and P.W.15 out of said witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4 P.W.10 and P.W.13 were permitted to be recalled and were further cross examined. After the said cross examination straight away the matter was posted for the defence eviden