SIVASHANKAR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the first accused in S.C. No. 51 of 2005 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. The second accused is the mother and third accused is the brother of the first accused. The criminal prosecution came to be launched against the accused at the instance of the complaint given by PW1, father of the deceased Thanuja in Crime No. 294 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Assailing the judgment of conviction, the accused have filed Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2011. The first appellate Court, by judgment dated 03.04.2013, set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed on the accused 2 and 3. As far as the first accused/revision petitioner herein is concerned, the appellate Court modified the sentence imposed under Section 304-B of IPC in to Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased Thanuja and A-1 was solemnised on 24.05.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the deceased lived in the matrimonial home along with the Accused 1 to 3. During the course of such matrimonial life, it is alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by demanding dowry at the instance of A-1 to A-3. While so, on 27.04.2003, the birth day of the deceased was celebrated at the matrimonial home and it was attended by PW1 to 3. Thereafter, on the night of 27.04.2003, it was alleged by PW1, father of the deceased that his son-in-law, A-1 made a phone call to him at about 12 'O' clock, threatened and scolded PW1. Thereafter, on the next day, on 28.04.2003, at about 10.00 am, due to the dowry demand and ill treatment as A-1 scolded his father over phone and shouted at him in a very bad language, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The deceased died on the spot. On hearing the death of the deceased, PW1 to 3 came to Hosur. PW1 lodged the complaint complaining that the death of the deceased is due to the harassment caused to her by A-1 to A-3. It was also complained that on the previous night, A-1 scolded him over phone which led to the deceased to take the extreme step.

(3.) During the course of trial, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 12 material objects were marked on the side of the prosecution, among them PW1 is the father, PW2 is the mother and PW3 is the sister of the deceased. PW4 is the aunt of the deceased. PW6 is an independent witness. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence convicted all the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. On appeal, the appellate Court acquitted the accused 2 and 3 and modified the sentence imposed on the first accused from Section 304-B to 306 of IPC on the ground that there is no proof of demand of dowry made by the accused. The appellate Court found that even the Revenue Divisional Officer, in his report, has stated that there was no evidence available to hold that the deceased was subjected to harassment owing to demand of dowry. The appellate Court held that the deceased had taken the extreme step owing to the instigation of the first accused and therefore, the first accused is guilty of the offence of abetment.