Bail Slip

The

appellant

namely

Logeswaran

@

Ramesh

S/o.Venkatachalam accused in S.C.No.105/14 on the file of the

Session Mahila Court (Mahila Fast Track Court) at Erode was

directed to be released on bail as per order this Court dated

24.06.2015 and made in Crl.MP.No.1/2015 in Crl.A.283/2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

[Judgment RESERVED ON : 29.06.2021]

[Judgment PRONOUNCED ON : 30.09.2021]

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

Crl.A.No.283 of 2015

Logeswaran @ Ramesh

......Appellant

.. Vs ..

State Rep.by

Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Erode Rural Sub Division

at Perundurai

Chennaimalai Police Station,

Erode.

Crime No.91 of 2013

...Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to set

aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 22.04.2015

passed in S.C.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions

Mahila Court (Mahila Fast Track Court) at Erode.

For Petitioner : Ms.Yogalakshmi

For Mr.M.Guruprasad

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

JUDGMENT

The convicted accused is the appellant herein.

2. The accused is the husband of the deceased viz.,

Chitra. The accused originally married to a person and got one

female child and he has re-married the deceased/Chitra after

the death of his first wife. On the date of the marriage of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the accused with Chitra (deceased), the child born through

first wife was four years old.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has

suffered financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- having spent medical

expenses for his first wife and in order to clear the debt

accrued for the medical expenses, he had demanded a sum

Rs.72,000/- from the parents of the deceased/chitra and

thereby, he has committed dowry demand which amounts to pay

cruelty and having not able to pay the said amount, the Chitra

has committed the suicide by consuming poison.

4. During the Trial, the parents of the deceased/Chitra

were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2; brother of the deceased was

examined as P.W.3; attestor of the witness viz., Ravi was

examined as P.W.4; Photographer, who took photos of the

deceased from the place of occurrence was examined as P.W.5;

RDO enquiry was conducted by P.W.6 viz., Dr.R.Sugumar and

marked Ex.P3/Inquest report and Ex.P4/RDO report; the

neighbours of the deceased were examined as P.W.7, P.W.8 &

P.W.9, to support the case of the prosecution in connection

with the demand of dowry, they have turned hostile; P.W.12 is

Dr.Jaganathan, who had conducted post mortem on the autopsy of

the deceased Chitra, had issued Ex.P6/Post mortem report;

P.W.13 is the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science

Department, who had given opinion as to the cause of the death

marked Ex.P9/Forensic report and opinion expressed for the

quarry raised by the police is marked as Ex.P8. Thereafter,

P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.13 are the police witnesses deposed

regarding the receipt of Ex.P1/complaint and registration of

FIR/Ex.P5; Observation Mahazar and alteration report were

marked as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11.

5. The learned Mahila Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court,

Erode has held that both the charges under Section 498(A) and

306 I.P.C were proved and accordingly laid conviction as

follows:-

(i) Under Section 498(A) of I.P.C, three years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(ii) Under Section 306 of I.P.C, 10 years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed in

S.C.No.105 of 2014, dated 22.04.2015, convicted accused has

preferred the Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6.

Ms.Yogalakshmi,

represented

counsel

for

Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

wou