BABU Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a private complaint by PW 6 against accused No. 1 and his mother, accused No.2, alleging commission of offence punishable under S.498A and S.304B due to the death of daughter of PW 6 in the house of the accused, immediately within ten months of the marriage, alleged to be in connection with a demand for dowry. Such a private complaint, Ext. P-4 was happened to be filed before the Magistrate Court as the police referred the case registered as per Ext. P-3 F.I.R. In connection with Ext. P-3, based on the F. I. Statement of PW 6 and the information from the police, PW 12 Tahsildar had conducted an inquest and drew up Ext. P-7 report recording the statement of PW 1 and PW 2. On investigation, the police found that no offence had been made out. Accordingly, the case was referred. It was thereupon, Ext. P-4 complaint was filed before the Magistrate. But only the offence under S.304B alone had been taken cognizance of and was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. Ext. P-4 reveals that there was demand for dowry of two sovereigns which was promised at the time of marriage and in connection with that demand, there was cruelty towards the daughter of PW 6, the wife of accused No. 1 and that this resulted finally committing suicide by the wife of accused No. 1, Jayamma, consuming poison.

(2.) P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased Jayamma. They have unanimously spoken before the court below that there were occasions of accused No. 1 demanding two more sovereigns said to be promised at the time of marriage and for that purpose there was harassment towards their sister. The 1st accused had even snatched the Mangalya Suthra of their sister while in their house and she sustained minor injuries on her neck. They had also noticed accused No. 1 harassing and beating their sister even on the previous day of the incident on 26th October 1994 while they were in the house of accused 1 and 2. PW 3, the brother inlaw of PW 1 has also spoken about the incident in that line in corroboration with the evidence given by PW 1 and PW 2. PW 6, father of PW 1 and PW 2 also has spoken in that line. Relying on their evidence and the evidence given by the doctor who conducted post mortem, and issued Ext. P-1 post mortem certificate, the court below concluded that Jayamma died due to poisoning. This was in the house of the accused, on 27th October 1994. Their marriage was solemnized on 31st January 1994. The poisoning was due to the harassment towards the deceased because of the demand for two sovereigns promised at the time of marriage. The evidence also reveals that there was demand for 25 sovereigns even at the time of marriage and there was subsequent demand that cash shall be given instead of 5 sovereigns and that it was paid to accused No. 1. It was disputed at the time of marriage that the chain presented to accused No. 1, weighing about two sovereign shall not be accounted to the promised dowry and it was agreed that it would be paid later. There was persistent demand for the same and consequent harassment towards Jayamma including on the previous day of the incident. Accordingly, the court below convicted the 1st accused. The 2nd accused, the mother of the 1st accused found not guilty. He was also sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under S.304B I.P.C. This is under appeal. The 2nd accused, the mother of the 1st accused found not guilty.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the case put forth in Ext. P-4 complaint is yet different from the first information statement Ext. P-3 given by PW 6 or the statements given by PW 1 and PW 2, when PW 12 prepared and drew up Ext. P-7 inquest report. The entire case is now focused on demand of dowry in the form of 2 sovereigns as duly promised earlier and consequent harassment of deceased Jayamma. There was no such allegation by PW 1, PW 2 or PW 6 at the initial stage when they gave statement to PW 12 at the time of inquest or made Ext. P-3 F. I. statement before police immediately after the occurrence. The case set up at the initial stage was that there was harassment and cruelty by accused No. 1 towards deceased Jayamma including snatching of Mangalya Suthra and that she refused to give ornaments for sale as demanded by accused No. 1. That will not constitute a demand for or in connection with dowry. Dowry is something which has been promised to be given at the time of marriage or which has been given at the time of marriage. That has already been given. Now it is the property available in the custody of the wife. If at all anything is proved, it was only a cruelty towards the wife which ultimately persuaded her to commit suicide by consuming poison. Therefore, on that count no charge under S.304B can be made out, it is submitted.