JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/P.W.1 against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.31 of 2015 dated 26.10.2016, wherein, the trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

2. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased Sangeetha, has preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sangeetha was residing at Malaiyeedu and the accused also residing near the house of the deceased. The husband of the deceased namely Kottaichamy was working in abroad and the deceased Sangeetha along with her children were residing in Malaiyeedu. The accused taking advantage of the absence of the husband of the deceased Sangeetha very often gave the sexual torture to the deceased. In this regard, already complaints were given by the deceased before the police as against the accused. While so, on 17.06.2013 at about 01.30 p.m., when the deceased Sangeetha was alone in her house, the accused entered into the house of the deceased and harassed her and thereby, she poured kerosene and set fire on her. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital at Pudukkottai and thereafter, she was admitted in the Geethanjali Hospital, Trichy for further treatement and she died on 18.06.2013 at about 03.10 p.m., in the hospital. In the hospital, the deceased Sangeetha has given the Dying Declaration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. Based on the statement given by the deceased, P.W.9 the Sub-Inspector of Police has registered the FIR in Cr.No.286 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, P.W.12/Inspector of Police conducted the investigation and then filed the final report.

4. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai has taken the case on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2015 and then furnished the copies of records relied on by the prosecution to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the said case was made over to the Mahalir Neethimandam, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.31 of 2015 for trial and accused also appeared. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides, framed the charges as against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.

5. Thereafter, the charges were read over and explained to the accused and he denied the charges and then the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and marked M.Os.1 to 3.

6. After completion of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has examined the accused under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to the increminating evidences adduced against him and he denied the same. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidences adduced by either side, the trial Court has not found the accused guilty and acquitted the accused from the charges.

7. Aggrieved over the said acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by P.W.1/brother of deceased on the following grounds:-

“(1)The learned trial Judge erroneously acquitted the accused based on assumption, presumption and surmises which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

(2)The entire approach of the learned trial Judge in dealing with the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 are patently illegal, manifestly-unjust and unreasonable.

(3)The judgement of court below is unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials such as the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and Ex.P3 judicial dying declaration, have been unjustifiably eliminated in that process it would be compelling reasons which warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court.

(4)The learned Sessions Judge erroneously exclused the judicial dying declaration Ex.P3 which had been found to be truthful and voluntarily made, in the absence of a