SANTHANAGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 12.11.2002, made in S.C.No.262 of 2001, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam, where by A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 304B IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 498A and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default in payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and the accused/appellant shall run the sentence concurrently.

(2.) RESPONDENT police has filed a final report stating that the first accused is the husband, who married the deceased Parvathy, two years ago. A2 and A3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Even though all traditional gifts have been given to A1, he demanded more dowry from his wife Parvathy and treated her with cruelty and used to beat her for demanding 5 Sovereigns of gold. On 30.04.2001, at about 5.30 p.m., all the accused persons beat Parvathy in front of the house of A1 at Vridhagirikuppam, demanding 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and as she was not able to meet out the cruelty and ill-treatment, on the same day, at 6.30 p.m., Parvathy consumed poisonous substance and died. Hence, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) CHALLENGING the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, Mr.P.Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would make the following submissions: (i) There was a delay in preferring the complaint. The alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 30.04.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. The complaint was given by P.W.1 at 8.00 a.m., on 01.05.2001. (ii) P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are the interested witnesses, are relatives of the deceased. There is a contradiction between their oral evidence. But P.W.5 to P.W.9, who are the independent witnesses, are turned hostile. (iii) P.W.14/R.D.O., who conducted inquest, deposed that the death is not due to dowry demand. Furthermore, R.D.O.'s final report has not been marked before the Court. (v) Investigating Officer has investigated the case on his own, without receiving any report from R.D.O. Further, he altered the offence under Section 304B IPC, but he has not filed Alteration Report before the Court. Hence, he prayed for acquittal of the accused/appellant. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon various judgments of Apex Court and this Court.