NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court IV), Chennai dated 18.5.2003 made in S.C. No. 167 of 2003, convicting the appellant who has been arrayed as A1, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. THE sentences are ordered to run concurrently. THEre are two accused in this case viz., A1 & A2 and A2 has been acquitted by the trial Court.

(2.) THE background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder: 2.1 A1 is the husband of the deceased. A2 is the mother of A1. THE marriage between A1 and the deceased took place on 16.9.1999. A female child was born out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage, P.W.I, the father of the deceased has given 40 sovereign jewellery and Kinetic Honda two wheeler to A1, apart from household articles. A1 was running business under the name and style of 'Kamatchi Travels' and as there was loss in the said business, he has asked financial assistance through the deceased from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 in turn took up a chit for Rs.85,000/- which was valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- and given the said amount to the deceased. Again he has obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- for the sake of his daughter, the deceased for lesser interest. 2.2 Al and A2 frequently subjected the deceased to cruelty by asking her to get money from her parental house. Lastly, a week prior to the death of the deceased, A1 asked Rs.6,000/- for putting up a mechanic shed and P.W.I gave that amount. Subsequently both Al and A2 came to the house of P.W.I after going to the Doctor for medical check up. P.W. 1 asked them to stay back at his house, but they informed that, they would come on the wedding day of P.W.I i.e., on 4.6.2001. 2.3 On 3.6.2001 at 11. p.m, P.W.1's brother's son one K.Prasad came and took P.W.I to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, where he found that his daughter already died. P.W. 11, father of A1 stated that, on 3.6.2001, the deceased went into her room with the child. At 4.30 p.m, he heard the crying of the child. Both P.W.11 and A2 knocked the door but it was bolted inside. When they saw through the window, they found the deceased was hanging from the fan. THEy break open the door with the help of neighbours. THEy have called for nearby doctor. THEreafter, P.W.11 gave a report Exhibit P6, which was received by one Devarajan, Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered the case in Crime No. 740 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Exhibit P8 is the F.I.R. 2.4 As the death has occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage, the investigation was taken up by P. W. 13, Deputy Superintendent of Police. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, Exhibit P9 and Rough Sketch, Exhibit P10 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered nylon saree, M.O.I under Exhibit P11. He examined the witnesses. He has altered the offences to one under Sections 498A, 306 and 304-B IPC. THE altered F.I.R is Exhibit P12. 2.5 P.W.12, the Tahsildhar conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He held the inquest on 3.6.2001 and submitted the inquest report Exhibit P7. It is stated in the inquest report that, there was no dowry demand. 2.6 P. W. 10, the Doctor attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, conducted postmortem on 4.6.2001. Exhibit P4 is the postmortem report. He found the following injuries: "A brown colour incomplete ante mortem ligature abrasion over the front and side of the neck 23 x 3 cm above the Thyroid cartilage. On the right side it was 4 cm below the right mastoid process and 7 cm below the left mastoid process. THE are underneath the ligature abrasion was pale and parchment. THEre was no extravasation of blood below the ligature abrasion. THE hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage were in tact. Tongue, nails were intensively cyanozed. No other external or internal injury present." 2.7 P.W.10 is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of "Asphysia due to hanging". 2.8 P.W.I 3, in continuance of his investigation, arrested A1 and A2 on 5.6.2001 at Perambur Paper Mills Market Road. 2.9 P.W.I 4, on perusal of the records and statements recorded by P.W.13, laid the charge sheet on 21.8.2001 for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 & 304-B IPC.

(3.) MR.T.V. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions: (1) There is absolutely no materials to implicate the accused for the demand of dowry. (2) Even as per the admitted version of P. W. 1, A1 was cordial with him throughout. (3) The evidence of P.W.I discloses that, A1 and the deceased frequently visited the house of P.W. 1, even a week prior to the date of occurrence and there is absolutely no materials to show that, there was any strained feelings between A1 and the deceased. (4) P.W.I categorically admitted that the marriage and seemandam expenses were met only by the accused house. Such being the position, it is unbelievable to allege that the accused demanded dowry. (5) There is absolutely not an iota of evidence available on record to show that soon before the death, the deceased was subject to cruelty by A1. (6) The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is also vague and they have not come forward with any definite version of allegation of cruelty or demand of dowry. (7) The report in this case was given only by P.W.11, the father of A1 and the accused was present at the scene after the occurrence and the conduct of Al proves his innocence. (8) The RDO report, Exhibit P-7 discloses that, there is no dowry demand from the accused. (9) Even as per the evidence of independent witness P.W.7, it is quite clear that the relationship of A1 and the deceased are cordial and he has specifically stated in the chief examination that the accused family is a affluent family.