MAHENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahendran, the son and Endammal, the mother were convicted for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. Challenging the same, they have filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: "(a) The deceased Velumani got married to the first appellant Mahendran in the year 1984. Dr.Natarajan, P.W.1 is her brother working as a Professor in a Government College. At the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and other articles were provided as Seervarisai to her. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born. (b) The deceased Velumani was staying with her husband, the first appellant as well as with her mother-in-law, the second appellant and father-in-law. Not satisfied with the dowry already provided, the appellants harassed the deceased asking her to get some more jewel and also to get a Moped from her parents. At the request of the deceased, P.W.1 and his parents gave some more jewels and also money for purchase of Moped. (c) Even then, the torture continued demanding more money and jewels. Unable to bear the torture, the deceased Velumani lodged a police complaint against her husband and her mother-in-law, the appellants on 3.9.1985 to P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police at Peelamedu Police Station. The complaint is Ex.P7. Ultimately, both the parties agreed to settle the matter and made an endorsement of compromise in Ex.P8. (d) Thereafter, they lived together. Even then, the harassment continued. About this harassment, the deceased used to complain to P.W.1 and P.W.4 Ranganathan, her brothers. Even when she was pregnant, she was driven out from the matrimonial home asking for more jewels. The deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and after birth of the child, the accused demanded jewels for the child as well as cash. Due to these happenings, P.W.1's mother was hospitalised and ultimately, she died on 17.8.1988. Even after this incident, the harassment at the hands of the appellants continued. (e) On 25.9.1988 early morning, the deceased Velumani along with her 9 months old child went to the nearby well and jumped into it for committing suicide. On hearing the sound, P.W.2 Ramachandran who is residing nearby got into the well and was able to save only the child, but Velumani got drowned herself and died. The messages were sent to P.W.1 and P.W.4, the brothers of Velumani. (f) P.W.1 and others came to the house of the accused and on seeing the dead body of the deceased, went and gave the complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.19, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The complaint was originally registered for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. First appellant also gave complaint and the same was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. Then, P.W.18, the Executive Magistrate held the inquest and submitted his report Ex.P11. P.W.19 D.S.P. took up further investigation. (g) In the meantime, D.W.1, the Sub Collector also conducted a separate enquiry and submitted his report stating that the death was due to dowry torture. Continuing the investigation, P.W.19 D.S.P. examined other witnesses. P.W.20 another D.S.P. took up further investigation and filed the charge sheet against both the accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C."

(3.) The Sessions Court on considering the materials available on record, framed the charges for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.