KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, unsuccessfully challenged the conviction before the Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court only reduced the sentence from nine years to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC but confirmed the sentence of five years as imposed in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A, on the allegation that Devasena (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) committed suicide because of the cruelty and torture perpetuated by the appellants who were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively along with husband Ashok Kumar (since acquitted).

(2.) Synoptical resumption of factual position is as follows : The marriage between the deceased and Ashok Kumar was solemnized on 27-1-1989. At the time of the marriage, it was a condition stipulated by the accused persons that along with other articles, 15 sovereigns of jewels and a cash of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid. Though the parents of the deceased (P.Ws. 3 and 4) agreed to meet the demands, they could only arrange 12 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs. 7,000/- and gave it to the accused persons at the time of marriage. They agreed to give the balance as early as practicable. Ashok Kumar was working abroad. Whenever he left India, he used to take his wife and leave her with her parents i.e. PWs. 3 and 4. Since the balance jewellery and cash were not given as agreed, the accused persons continued to make demand therefor. Deceased was insulted, humiliated and tortured. When they became unbearable, the deceased came out of the matrimonial home. The appellant No. 1 Kaliyaperumal took her back and beat her with chappal in a public street. This was witnessed by P.W. 5. On hearing about the incident, P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to the house of appellant No. 1. Here against they were insulted and abused by appellant No. 1. On 9-12-1992, P.W. 3 received the information that their daughter (deceased) had committed suicide. Both P.Ws. 3 and 4 came to the house of appellant No. 1. At that time the village Administrative Officer (P.W. 1) was present. On the basis of the statement given by P.W. 3, Ex. P1 was prepared by P.W. 1 and sent to the police station. P.W. 9 received the report and a case was registered. Intimation was sent to the RDO to conduct inquest. He came to the spot and obtained statements from the accused-appellants, parents of the deceased and other witnesses. Thereafter he sent Ex. P8 report to P.W. 11, D.S.P. for further action. The enquiry of RDO revealed that the death was due to dowry torture. P.W. 11 took up further investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During trial, thirteen witnesses were examined. Accused person pleaded false implication. As noted above, the appellants were convicted while the husband of the deceased was acquitted. The conviction and sentences imposed were challenged before the Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment, as noted above, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced in respect of offence under Section 304-B.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 304-B has no application because there was no evidence to show that soon before deceased committed suicide, there was any cruelty or torture. According to him Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short Evidence Act) has no application because the prosecution has failed to prove that "soon before her death" the victim was subjected to such cruelty or harassed in action with demand for dowry. It was also submitted that both the trial Court and the High Court have relied on inadmissible evidence. The RDO who submitted the report was not examined and, therefore, letters claimed to have been written by the husband of the deceased, accused-Ashok Kumar could not have considered. The RDO was not examined and P.W. 12 an Assistant in the office was examined to show that the report was given by the RDO. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 were attacked on the ground of exaggerations. It was submitted that on the self-same evidence accused-Ashok Kumar, the husband was acquitted, there is no reason for convicting the present appellants. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the High Court has analysed the evidence minutely and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the accusations against the accused persons.