1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.168 of 2011 Anjalai Devi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy – 13. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police, Thiruvarambure, Trichy 15. ...Respondents 1&2/Complainant 3.Sooriamoorthy ... 3rd Respondent/Accused PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the Mahila Court, Trichirappalli with S.C.No.114 of 2008, which was disposed on 29.12.2008 by setting aside the acquittal made in favour of the 3rd respondent and convict him in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mohandoss For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi for R1 and R2 O R D E R This Criminal Revision Petition arises against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2008 in S.C.No.114 of 2008 passed by the Mahila Court, Trichirapalli. 2.On 19.10.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Jayasudha, who is the wife of the accused, suffered burn injuries and subsequently died on 22.10.2002. The accused, was charged under Sections 498(A) and 306 of I.P.C. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the accused/husband poured kerosene on the deceased and set her upon fire. Before the lower Court, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 12 exhibits. On the side of the defence, the accused examined himself. On appreciation of material evidence, the lower Court found that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, immediate relatives of the deceased, had not participated in the marriage between the accused and the deceased, as they opposed the same, since the accused belonged to a different caste. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.As such was the case, the prosecution story of 30 sovereigns of gold having been gifted by the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage, was found false. The contention of the defence was that P.Ws.1 and 2, sisters of the deceased had moved Sub Court, Trichy, for getting the death benefits of the deceased, who was working as a Clerk at Regional Engineering College, Trichy and that a false case has been foisted against him. 5.The lower Court entered upon a detail discussion and found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were unbelievable. The further finding of the lower Court is that treating the dying declaration as a complaint (Ex.P.8), the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.12 has registered F.I.R., marked as Ex.P.9, as against the accused. As per Ex.P.8 & P.9, the deceased had informed that she suffered burn injuries due to fall of a kerosene stove on her, while she was cutting vegetables. This position is reiterated in the accident register Ex.P.10 which informs that the deceased suffered burn injuries due to an accident 6.In these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order of the lower Court, acquitting the petitioner. Accordingly, this Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy – 13. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police, Thiruvarambure, Trichy 15. Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRL RC(MD)No.168 of 2011 02.03.2011 nbj PAM 28.04.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/