that there had been illicit relationship between the deceased and A1. When she had gone for delivery of her second child, she came to know that A1 had been living with the deceased as husband and wife. Therefore, there are enough materials available before the Trial Court through the evidence of P.W.4, who happens to be his first wife. The conduct of A1 is consuming alcohol and abusing his wife. P.W.4 is none other than the first wife of A1. When she was away in her parents house for the delivery of her second child, all the occurrence had taken place right from contracting the second marriage and the death of the so-called second wife. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had discussed the evidence of reliable witnesses only arrived at the conclusion that the conduct of A1 alone had made the deceased to end her life, escaping from the circumstances created by her own conduct. She had lacked support from the parents because it was a love marriage against the advice of her elders, P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.8, who had stated that they had not contacted the deceased after her elopement with A1. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is not perverse. The Appeal lacks merit and is to be dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.
