Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The conviction and sentence dated 06.08.2007 passed, in Sessions Case No.432 of 2006, by the District and Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore, are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased, by name, Suseela. After marriage both of them have lived as husband and wife happily for a short span of one year and subsequently, the accused has used to demand money from the deceased for taking brandy and also for his lavish expenditure. On 14.6.2006, the accused has demanded the same thing from the deceased and due to that, she has gone to her parents house and on 19.6.2006, at about 5.00 p.m. she doused kerosene and set fire on her and due to burn injuries, she passed away. After occurrence, the father of the deceased, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.98 of 2006. The complaint given by the defacto complainant has been marked as Ex.P1.

12. After considering the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to closely scrutinize the materials mentioned in the first charge, wherein it has been simply stated that very often the accused used to demand money for taking brandy and also for his lavish expenditure from the deceased. Even prior to five days from the date of occurrence, he has done the very same thing. Except the said allegations, no allegation is found in the first charge with regard to demand of dowry.

14. As stated earlier, in the first charge, it has been specifically stated that very often the accused used to demand money for taking brandy and also for his lavish expenditure, from the deceased. But the said aspect is not found place in Ex.P5. In Ex.P5, materials are available so as to come to a conclusion that the accused has demanded dowry from the deceased. But the alleged demand of dowry is not found place in the first charge. Since the first charge is not inconsonance with the materials found in Ex.P5, dying declaration, on the basis of Ex.P5, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that only due to demand of dowry, the deceased has passed away. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, on the basis of Ex.P5, is totally erroneous.