JUDGMENT

The appellant herein was convicted by the Mahila court, Chennai in S.C. No.7 of 2014 for offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC as well as the sentence imposed on him, challenges the same in this appeal.

2.1 The prosecution case opens as below:

a) 3rd April, 2012 opened as a peaceful day for the appellant and his wife, (who is now dead) and the child they have. However, later in the day, appellant's wife was found hanging with a saree tied to the ceiling fan. The outer door was broken open by the appellant along with PW1, the landlord of the appellant, who lived in the ground floor portion.

b) PW1 promptly gave Ext.P1 complaint, receiving which PW18, registered Ext.P18 FIR under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. The investigation was then taken over by PW19.

c) PW18 proceeded to the SOC, prepared Ext.P2, Observation Magazar in the presence of PW7 and another, and also Ext.P19 rough sketch of the SOC. PW11, photographer who photographed the SOC along with the deceased and the photographs he shot are MO2 series. The IO would seize the saree which the deceased had used for committing suicide (marked MO1) under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.

d) The body was soon removed for postmortem and P.W.15 conducted autopsy on the body and came out with Ext.P13 postmortem report wherein he had indicated that asphyxia due to hanging as the cause for death of appellant's wife. The viscera parts were preserved and forwarded to forensic department, and PW13 on the basis of Ext.P12, the forensic chemical analysis report has recorded that no poison was found in the visceral parts of the deceased.

e) Alongside, the investigating officer began recording the statements of the witnesses and in the process also seized MO3 and MO4, respectively the cellphone of the appellant and his wife under Ext.P9, seizure mahazar in the presence of PW10. He would then forward MO3 and MO4 to P.W.12. These cellphones were examined by PW12, and in his Ext.P11 report has recorded that it was not possible for him to ascertain whether there was any conversation between the accused and the deceased shortly prior to the occurrence.

f) Since the occurrence has happened within seven years of appellant's marriage, PW17 RDO, conducted an inquest and in Ext.P17 report he has indicated that there was a demand for dowry, for which he relied on the statements recorded as disclosed in Ext.P16.

g) The investigating officer would now file a memo for altering the section from Sec.174(3) Cr.P.C to Sec. 306 IPC .

h) In the meantime, PW18 was replaced by PW19, who was followed by PW20, laid the final report against the appellant under Section 498A and 306 IPC.

2.2 The trial court framed necessary charges under the above provisions, and proceeded to try them. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW20 of whom PW8 and PW9 are the parents of the deceased, and PW14 was her maternal uncle. PW1 as stated was the landlord of the appellant and PW2 is PW1's son and P.W.3 to P.W.6 are the neighbours of the appellant. Other witnesses are essentially official witnesses and their role has been already introduced in the narration above.

3. After trial, the Sessions Court found appellant guilty of the charges framed against him, and sentenced him as below:

4.1 The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are as below:

a) Even going by the prosecution line of the crime, the day had opened as a perfect day for the couple and their child uptill 11'o Clock. There was peace within the family. According to the testimony of P.W1, P.W2, the appellant had gone for his job at about 11 O'clock and his wife had committed suici