STATE Vs. JAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against acquittal.

(2.) The accused were charged for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 I.P.C., read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 is the husband of P.W.1; A.2 is father A.1; A.3 is the brother of A.1; A.4 is the brother-in-law of A.1 and A.5 is the sister of A.1. P.W.1 has given a complaint to the police to the effect that on 29.10.1990, the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 was celebrated; at that time, 52 sovereigns of jewels were given, apart from silver articles. That apart, a chain of 3 sovereigns and a ring was also presented to A.1. Rs.20,000/- was also given in cash. After the marriage, within one month, the real nature of A.1 was realized by P.W.1. He used to come late to the house in a drunken mood and also accused-1 and 2 demanded all the jewels of P.W.1 for the purpose of improving the business. During January, 1991, when P.W.1 was taken to the village of A.1 for Pongal festival, they tried to take all the jewels of P.W.1. Subsequently, they shifted to Sait Colony at Egmore on 18.3.1991. They resided there till June 1991. During that period, A.1 treated P.W.1 cruelly and compelled her to part with her jewels. He also beat her and scolded her using filthy words. A.2 also joined him in demanding the jewels. Having illicit intimacy with a woman working in a leather factory, A.1 neglected P.W.1 and also threatened with dire consequences. During June, 1991, unable to bear the cruelty of A.1, P.W.1 consumed kerosene to commit suicide. But later, she went to her parents house. Therefore, A.1 was charged for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 109 I.P.C. A.2 to A.5 were charged for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 109 I.P.C. Since A.1 and A.2 took few jewels of P.W.1, charge under Section 406 was also framed against accused-1 and 2.

(3.) The lower Court recording evidence, acquitted the accused of all the charges. The lower Court has found that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Against that, the State has filed this appeal. The learned Magistrate who tried the case has acquitted the accused for the following reasons:- (1) Though P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she consumed kerosene and admitted in the hospital, she does not give any particulars and therefore, this accusation is not proved. (2) Further, if really, the accused wanted to take the jewels from P.W.1, they could have taken away when P.W.1 was residing along with them and therefore, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 was not believable. (3) The learned Magistrate has also found that in fact a complaint has been made only against A.1 and A.2, but the other accused, A.3 to A.5 were impleaded as accused and A.4 was working in the High Court. In Ex.P.1, nothing was stated about A.4. Therefore, A.4 and A.5 have been added as an afterthought. The witness, P.W.3 was an independent witness and he has not stated anything about A.4 and A.5. The same witness was recalled and examined after one year and he has stated that A.4 and A.5 were also present during the year 1981 December when they insisted P.W.1 to give all her jewels. This evidence of P.W.3 was disbelieved by the Magistrate on the ground that the witness was recalled after one year. Therefore, much importance cannot be given to that evidence and hence it is rejected. Learned Magistrate has also found that in order to A.4 and A.5 were falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, the Magistrate has rejected the case of P.W.1 as against A.4 and A.5 since nothing was stated against them even in Ex.A.1. Further, the learned Magistrate has found that the charge that A.1 and A.2 have used 12 sovereigns of jewels for their own purpose and thereby caused breach of trust has not been proved as there was no evidence to prove that. The learned Magistrate has also found that the real reason for separation of A.1 and P.W.1 is only the autocratic attitude of P.W.2 and he has instigated P.W.1 to file the case against the accused.