J. Samuel, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range and

- 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].....iv metropolitan magistrate, saidapet, chennai. in such case, the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under sections 498-a and 406 r/w. 109 cpc and sections 4 & 6 of the dowry prohibition act. the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant while the second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner.2. the matter earlier was posted on several occasions for reporting settlement. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a joint petition under section 10(a) of the indian divorce act, for dissolution of marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, has been filed before the family court, chennai, in o.p. no. 3173 of 2007. accordingly, the family court dissolved the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant.3. perusal of the certified copy of the joint petition filed before the family court shows that both parties mutually agreed that they would withdraw the cases filed against each other especially that the defacto complainant would withdraw all allegations against the first petitioner and his family members in c.c. no. 6420 of 2005 and 3453 of 2005.4. learned counsel for the petitioners informs that despite the best efforts, the first petitioner is unable to contact the defacto complainant so as to have her presence before this court either in person or through the counsel to acknowledge the settlement arrived at between them. learned counsel for the petitioners also informs that the other case in c.c. no. 3453 of 2005 was prosecuted for offence under section 138 of negotiable instruments act and that case also stands withdrawn.5. i have heard the learned government advocate (crl. side).6. in view of the categorical mutual agreement recorded in the joint petition and the fact that pursuant to that the family court has passed an order of dissolution of marriage, this court is inclined to accept the position.....