BALACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under S.304 B and 498 A IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the first count. No separate sentence is ordered for the offence under S.498A IPC.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no evidence in this case that he had subjected his deceased wife to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with any demand for dowry". Even going by the prosecution case what the accused had directed the deceased was to sell away the property which had already been given to his wife. That does not amount to demand for dowry. It is true that he had sent her to her house. Even if it is cruelty it will not be one for or in connection with demand for dowry. Necessarily, the charge under S.304B will not lie. There was no actual cruelty on his part as well. Therefore the charge under S.498A also will not lie. So the appellant therefore is entitled for acquittal, the counsel submits.

(3.) On the other hand it is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that the evidence given by PW 1, the brother of the deceased and PW 2 the mother of the deceased, PW 3 the brother inlaw of the deceased, PW 4 the maternal aunt of the deceased disclosed that there was a discussion regarding dowry even prior to the marriage of the accused with the deceased on 18-05-1987. The accused had demanded 20 sovereign and 50 cents of land to be given to the bride. The discussion ended agreeing to give 25 cents of land and 16 sovereign of gold ornaments. Even after the marriage there was a demand that 30 cents of property had been agreed to and that it should be given. This dispute also, as is spoken to by the witnesses, ended in a compromise and land measuring five cents set apart as a burial ground lying adjacent to the 25 cents of land already given to the wife of the accused was given to the deceased. Thus continued dispute and demand for dowry are evident in this case. In such situation the fact that the accused had taken the victim on 29-12-1990 to her house demanding that the entire 30 cents standing in her name shall be sold indicates that there was cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. A married girl was sent to her house demanding that the entire property in her name shall be sold and sale consideration shall be brought to the husband in spite of her resistance to sell, is a cruelty coming under explanation to S.498A IPC. It is an act which will drive a woman to commit suicide as is done in this case. Therefore there is evidence with regard to the offence punishable under S.498A as well. So no interference is called for from the hands of this Court, the Public Prosecutor submits.