STATE Vs. MASILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is the appellant. The appeal is against the acquittal of the respondents, who are arrayed as A. 1 and A. 2 in S. C. No. 45 of 1993 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. They were tried under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 498-A read with Section 34, I. P. C. and also under Section 304-B read with Section 34, I. P. C. The allegation against respondents 1 and 2 is that both of them subjected the deceased Malarvizhi to cruelty by demanding dowry, as they asked for jewels and cash and on account of such demand for dowry, she committed suicide between 10 P. M. on 17. 10. 1992 and 5. 00 A. M. on 18. 10. 1992. The learned trial Judge, on the recorded evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the charges against the respondents and, hence, acquitted them. The present appeal challenges the said acquittal.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the appeal, we have to remind ourselves of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions. The law is that the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal and the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. The principle to be followed by the appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.

(3.) THE facts that are necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows:-P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased and P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased is the wife of the first respondent and the second respondent is the sister-in-law of the first respondent, in that she is the co-sister of the deceased. The deceased was given in marriage to the first respondent on 05. 9. 1991 and at the time of marriage, she was given 16 sovereigns of gold, household articles including a cot worth Rs. 10,000/-, a motor-cycle worth Rs. 10,000/-, besides cash of Rs. 20,000/ -. They were living happily for some time and thereafter the first respondent wanted to sell the jewels of his wife and this fact was brought to the notice of the parents of the deceased by the deceased by writing letters to them. The deceased also wrote a letter two months prior to the date of incident to her parents requesting them to give her Rs. 6,000/- so that the house which her husband is putting up could be completed. But her parents, P. Ws. 1 and 2, refused to give her any money. The deceased also complained to P. W. 3 that her husband, who is the first respondent in the appeal, and his sister-in-law, who is the second respondent, are in illicit relationship with each other and that she is not happy as they are ill-treating her. While the matter stood thus, on 18. 10. 1992, a wireless message was received by P. W. 1 that his daughter is dead. Thereafter, he went to his daughter's house at Kalapet taking along with him his wife, P. W. 2. On reaching the house of his daughter, he saw her daughter's body lying on a cot. In the meantime, the first respondent went to the police station and gave a complaint, Ex. P. 9 to P. W. 6, the Head Contable, Kalapet Police Station at 8. 30 A. M on 18. 10. 1992. On the complaint, Ex. P. 9, a case was registered in Crime No. 101 of 1992 under section 174, Cr. P. C. Ex. P. 10 is a copy of the printed first information report and investigation was taken up by P. W. 7, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kalapet Police station. He went to the scene of occurrence accompanied by women police constables to assist him and also sent a requisition to P. W. 5, Tahsildar to go over to the spot to conduct inquest. Accordingly, P. W. 5 reached the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars, during which the first respondent and P. Ws. 2 and 3 were examined. Their statements were recorded. The inquest report is marked as Ex. P. 8, which contains the opinion of the the panchayatdars that the deceased died by committing suicide on account of the first respondent not purchasing her a new saree and on account of his refusal to allow her to take up a job. After the inquest, a requisition was sent to the hospital along with the body for conducting autopsy.