VIJAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this appeal is A.1 in S.C.No.13 of 1991 on the file of Court of Sessions, Pudukottai. He was tried along with his brother and mother array as A.2 and A.3 in that sessions case. A.2 and A.3 were acquitted of all the offences for which they were charged and tried and that judgment had become final since the State had not filed any appeal against acquittal. A.1 alone stands convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 304- B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively. In fact, all the three accused were tried only in respect of the above referred two offences only. Aggrieved over his conviction for the offences referred to earlier, A.1 is before this Court. Heard Mr.R. Sriramalu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned Government Counsel for the State for the respondent.

(2.) I briefly state hereunder the case of the prosecution. The deceased by name Padmini is the wife of A.1 . P.Ws. 1 and 3 are her brothers and P.W.2 is her father. They were all residing at Sarananapatti. A.1 is a resident of Edayapatti. Padmini died in an unnatural circumstance on 4.6.1990. Padmini was given in marriage to A.1 five years prior to her death. A.1 was having a grocery shop and he was lending amplifier and systems attached to amplifier on hire. A.1's place and the place of the deceased is separated by a distance of 2 k.m. A.2 is the younger brother of A.1 and A.3 is their mother. A.3 is the second wife of the father of A.1 and A.2. She has no children. In other words, A.3 is the step mother of A.1 and A.2. P.W.2 had totally seven children including P.Ws.1, 3 and the deceased. Padmini and A.1 lived happily for about four of five months after marriage. Thereafter, quarrel arose between the spouses on the ground that Padmini had not brought along with her enough presentation during marriage. However, P.W.2 had provided her everything that will be provided as per the caste custom. Six months after marriage Padmini told P.W.2 that A.1 wanted money. Accordingly, P.W.2 gave a sum of Rs.500 to Padmini. Five months after that, Padmini told P.W.2 that her husband/A. 1 wanted a sum of Rs. 1,000 to buy an amplifier which sum was also provided. Even thereafter, the first accused asked his wife/Padmini to get some more money to buy some more articles and accordingly Padmini went and asked her father P.W.2 for a further sum of Rs.2,500. P.W.2 replied that though he is having the stock of chillies; since the market price during that time was low, he will wait for the appropriate season, sell the chillies for a good price and then give her money. Padmini went back to the house of A.1. To days later, P.W.1 was informed by one Muthu that her sister Padmini committed suicide by hanging. Immediately P.Ws. 1 to 3 went to the house of A.1 where they found the dead body of Padmini kept on a cot. None of the accused were there. The neighbouring relatives were enquired and they showed a tree nearby stating that Padmini committed suicide by hanging herself in the tree. P.Ws. 1 and 3 went near the tree and saw the blood-stain under the tree. They also saw on the branch of the tree an impression of a rope.

(3.) MR.R. Sriramalu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the prosecution miserable failed to establish that the deceased in this case was subjected to any cruelty either as contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or as contemplated under Section 304-B of the same Code. The prosecution case is that, the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the cruelty to which she was exposed to by the accused pestering her to get dowry from her father. Therefore, it i s essential that before a conviction could be sustained for the offences referred to above, the prosecution must place acceptable and reliable materials that the accused in fact had exposed the deceased to such amount of cruelty to meet the unlawful demand (as in this case "dowry demand"). Unless it is established, the prosecution cannot succeed. The learned senior counsel by taking me elaborately through the materials placed by the prosecution as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3 would contend that, their evidence even if accepted as true and without contradiction the same in any manner, would not establish that the first accused had treated his wife cruelty as referred to in the two sections earlier mentioned. The Learned senior counsel would also contend that the materials on record show that the deceased was having considerable medical problem during her menstrual cycle and that was the reason which made her to commit suicide, she being unable to bear the severe abdominal pain. Learned senior counsel also invited my attention to the fact that the prosecution itself would admit that a Panchayat was convened to sort out the problem between the deceased and the first accused. That problem is only with reference to her matrimonial unhappiness between the spouse and not in the context of the accused making any demand for dowry which the prosecution party were compelled to part with. The prosecution ought to have examined the people who participated in the Panchayat, but however they have done it. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution is not willing to place the entire materials on record. In the context of the above, the evidence of D.W.1 who participated in the Panchayat referred to earlier clearly established that the demand for dowry was never in the mind of any of the parties. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that the prosecution definitely failed to establish the ingredient of any of the offences (i.e) under Sections 498-A or Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The conduct of the accused being present around the house itself at the time when padmini was found dead would show that it would be a point indicating their innocence. The non-examination of any of the neighbours who according to P.Ws.1 to 3 knew about the ill-treatment meted out by A.1 to his wife is fatal. The non- examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 also by P.W.11 during inquest should also be taken into account in holding that their evidence before Court is not free from doubt. The learned senior counsel would sum up his argument by stating that there is practically no legal evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The learned Government Counsel would respond to all these points by stating when that those evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is found to be trustworthy, then there is no compelling need to examine any independent witnesses though the neighbours are also aware of the attitude of A.1 towards his wife. The learned Government counsel would contend that the materials placed on record do not lead to the conclusion that the deceased could have committed suicide on her own, unable to bear the abnormal abdominal pain which she suffered during her menstrual cycle but the suicide was on account of she being subject to cruelty at the hands of the accused. The learned Government counsel would lastly contend that the learned Sessions Judge had correctly appreciated the entire materials on record and arrived at a just conclusion and as such no interference is called for.