A.M. Babu JUDGMENT
A.M. Shaffique, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Kerala and the father of the victim, Chami challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad dated 07/12/2013 in S.C. No. 641 of 2010 by which the accused/appellants were not found guilty for offences alleged against them and hence were acquitted of all charges.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows:
The deceased was married to the 1st accused as per religious rites of the parties on 11/02/2008 at Mannur Sree Kaimathukavu temple. They began to live as husband and wife at the house of the 1st accused at House No. 1/135, Mannur Thekkinkadu at Mannur Panchayat along with accused nos. 2 to 4. The accused used to torture her telling that the dowry given was inadequate and also by demanding more dowry in cash and kind. After the delivery of the child, she came back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she was asked to bring money and gold and was subjected to cruelty and torture both mental and physical. Due to all these, on 08/04/2010, at 09.00 p.m, she poured kerosene on her body in the said house and set her ablaze and died out of burn injuries so sustained.
3. Prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 18 as witnesses, marked documents Exts. P1 to P17 and identified articles as MO 1 to MO 31. Exts. D1 to D8 contradictions were marked by the defence. During 313 examination, all the accused denied circumstances that appeared against them and pleaded innocence. Defence examined DW 1 and DW 2 from their side.
4. This is an appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is settled law that appellate Courts have to restrain themselves from reversing the finding of a trial Judge merely on the ground that another view is possible or that a better view could have been taken. Unless it is shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the judgment is perverse or that it is unreasonable, our interference is not called for in the matter. Keeping these basic principles in mind, let us go into the appreciation of evidence afresh.
5. At the very outset, it can be seen that there is no charge of Section 498A of I.P.C. against any of the accused. At the same time, they were charged with Section 304B of I.P.C. which is the offence of dowry death. The Court charge further shows that the accused were charged by the trial Court with offence under Sections 304B and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') in the light of Regbir Singh v. State of Haryana (CDJ 2010 SC 1067). Learned Senior counsel for the accused submitted that the way charge was framed by the trial Court was not legal. S. 304B of I.P.C. and S. 302 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. cannot go simultaneously. We make it clear that there is nothing in S. 304B as to prevent the Court from charging the accused with S. 302 of IPC. S. 304B is a special provision inserted in I.P.C. to deal with the menace of dowry death. It........