J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.277 of 2016, dated

15.02.2021.

2. The respondent-Police have registered a case against the appellants and 2 others in Crime No.895 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. After investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.54 of 2016. After completing the formalities, since the offences are especially triable by the Court of Session, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.277 of 2016 and made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charge against the appellants, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, farmed charges for the offences under Sections

498-A and 304 (B) of IPC.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused 2 and 4 not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304(B) of IPC and acquitted them, since both the charges framed against the accused 2 and 4 were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge, also found the accused 1 and 3 / appellants 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove its case for demand of dowry, however, convicted the accused 1 and 3 / appellants 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; and also convicted the accused 1 and 3 / appellants 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there was no demand of dowry and there was no harassment by the family members of the appellants, which is evident from the suicide note written by the deceased. The learned counsel would further submit that there was a delay in filing the F.I.R. and delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court. It is also submitted that no independent witnesses spoken about the cruelty and also abettment. Though there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are interested witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parents of the deceased have not stated anything about Rs.60,000/- was brought by them to give their daughter, as against the original demand made by the first appellant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in Ex.P1-complaint and only during the RDO enquiry, they have stated that the deceased telephoned and informed her mother that it is not possible for her to live in the house without giving money demanded by the accused, and on receipt of the said information, the parents of the deceased viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have arranged a sum of Rs.60,000/- and rushed to the house of the accused, which is nothing but an improvised version.

8. The learned counsel would further contend that though the learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 4 and al