Vijayakumari, Vs. Pappathi,

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]orderm. jaichandren, j.1. this civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 31.8.2009, made in i.a. no. 418 of 2009, in o.s. no. 154 of 2006, on the file of the iii additional subordinate judge, coimbatore. 2. the petitioners in the present civil revision petition are the defendants in the suit, in o.s.no. 154 of 2006. the respondents had filed the said suit praying for partition of the suit schedule properties. after three of the plaintiffs had been examined during the trial in the suit, the petitioners had filed an interlocutory application, in i.a. no. 418 of 2009, praying that the trial court may be pleased to issue summons to the first plaintiff to depose on behalf of the defendants in the suit. 3. the trial court, by its order, dated 31.8.2009, had dismissed the application stating that there is no provision in the civil procedure code, 1908, or in any other law for the court to compel any party to be examined as a witness. the trial court had further held that the interlocutory application had been filed only with the mala fide intention of dragging on the proceedings in the suit. 4. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order, dated 31.8.2009, i.a. no. 418 of 2009, in o.s. no. 154 of 2006, on the file of the iii additional subordinate judge, coimbatore. hence, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected m.p. no. 1 of 2010 is closed.