LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 1st Accused, who was convicted for the offence under Section 304 B of IPC in SC No. 71 of 2000 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Santhi had married the appellant herein about seven months before the date of incident which took place on 23-06-1999. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given nine sovereigns of jewellery to the deceased and two sovereigns chain, one sovereign ring, wrist watch and other house hold articles to the appellant. The appellant, his mother, unmarried brother and sister have raised a demand of motor cycle and 25 sovereigns which was not met, with the result she was subjected to torture and cruelty which made the deceased to hasten her death by hanging herself. A case was filed by the respondent/police against the appellant, his mother, unmarried brother and sister for the offence under Section 304 B IPC, however the trial court acquitted the said three persons as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them. On 23-06-1999, at about 9.00 a.m. the sister-in-law of the deceased came out of the house with hue and cry that the deceased hung herself. Immediately, PW4, a neighbour rushed inside the house and found the body hanging on the ceiling fan. He removed the body from the ceiling fan with the help of neighbours and found she was dead. PW4 taken Ex.P2 written by the deceased kept inside her blouse wherein she has narrated that she was subjected to torture and cruelty due to the dowry demand made by her husband and in-laws were not met. On receipt of the information, Pws 1 and 2 have come to the place of occurrence, later PW1 had lodged a complaint, Ex.P1 to the respondent/police at about 14.30 hours. After investigation, charge sheet was filed Under Section 304 B IPC against the appellant and three others. The trial court acquitted others and convicted the appellant alone.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not established the ingredients of the offence alleged against the appellant herein; that the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are interested witness which ought not to have been relied on by the trial court; that there is no allegation that there was a demand for dowry by the accused in the absence of any demand, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304 B IPC; that the court below failed to see that Pws 1 and 2 have admitted in their evidence before the Panchayatars that the appellant has given up the alleged demand of dowry and taken her back to his house; that the court below ought to have seen that the alleged suicide note, Ex.P2 left by the deceased does not implicate the accused; that nothing is mentioned in the suicide note for the alleged demand of dowry made by the appellant; that the evidence before the court below appears to be highly exaggerated version, if tested in the background of other materials and records which includes the enquiry conducted by the RDO and his report, it would make it clear that their evidence is not trustworthy to warrant a conviction; that the deceased committed suicide because she was not married to the person of her choice and that due to frustration she has committed suicide. The learned counsel further submits that no conviction at all can be based on the evidence let in by the prosecution and in any event it is unsafe to test the evidence of prosecution witness and prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.