COMMON JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.428 of 2019 is filed by the appellants, who are the accused No.1 & 2 in S.C.No.19 of 2014, aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, convicting them for the offenses under Sections 498A and 304(B) of IPC, r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2.Crl.A.No.502 of 2019 is filed by P.W.1/father of the deceased/wife of the third accused, aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal, acquitting the third accused/husband viz., Ashok Kumar from the offenses charged of.

3.Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same case and judgment, they are taken up for disposal together by this common judgment.

4.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2013, when P.W.13/

the Inspector of Police was on duty at the SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri. P.W.1 appeared before him and gave a statement to the effect that he had given his daughter in marriage to Ashok Kumar/ the third accused in this case on 19.11.2011 and the couple had 10 months old baby. The said Accused No. 3 and his parents were torturing her to bring dowry. While so, on 21.05.2013 at 09.22 P.M, the deceased called him from her mobile phone and reported that her husband and in-laws have hit her. After some time, one Srinath/P.W.3 called P.W.1/father of the deceased at about 10.20 P.M and informed that his daughter was lying in an unconscious stage and immediately, thereafter, when the parents of the deceased/victim went to the daughter's house and came to know that their daughter committed suicide by hanging herself, therefore, P.W.1/father of the deceased lodged a complaint.

5.Upon such statement, a case in Crime No.723 of 2013 was registered on 22.05.2013, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon receipt of the report of the RDO, the case was altered as to one under Section 304 (B) of IPC and subsequently, after investigation, by a further alteration, the offense under Section 498A of IPC was also included.

6.P.W.15, Inspector of Police, had investigated the case and laid a final report, proposing that all the three accused guilty of the above said offenses. The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur in P.R.C.No.26 of 2013 and upon appearance of the accused and furnishing the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. Upon committal, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.19 of 2014 and was made over to the Trial Court.

7.The Trial Court after considering the material on records, framed the charges for the offenses under Section 498 A of IPC, and Section 304(B)

of IPC, r/w Section 34 of IPC, as against all the three accused. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

8.To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked exhibits P1 to P13. The de-facto complainant/one Muniappan, was examined as P.W.1; One Saroja, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2; One Srinath, brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.3, but, was treated as hostile. One Babu, who is another brother of the deceased, was examined as P.W.4; One Marappan, a common relative, who was the instrumental to the marriage proposal of the deceased and the third accused, was examined as P.W.5; One Purushothman, who was the neighbour of the deceased, was examined as P.W.6; One Divya, who is also one of the neighbours, who turned hostile, was examined as P.W.7; One Anbalagan, who stood as witness for identifying the dead body of the victim and for taking out the jewels from the body of the victim by Mahazar, was examined as P.W.8; One V.Thimmarayan, Village Administrative Officer, who was the witness of the Observation Mahazar, examined as P.W.9; One Sankar, the Photographer was examined as P.W.10; One Lavanya, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, was examined as P.W.11; One Praveen P.Naiyar, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted the report, as P.W.12; One Murali, the Inspector of Police, who registered the First Infor