G M NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District, in S. C. No. 122 of 1990 for the alleged offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is as follows : Deceased Velumani was married to the first accused/first respondent herein on 3-6-1984. Though 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and other articles were provided to her at the time of the marriage, her husband and mother-in-law the second accused/second respondent, were harassing her to get some more jewels and also to get a Moped from her parents. Due to this harassment, the deceased Volumani lodged a complaint against her husband and mother-in-law on 3-9-1985 in Peelamedu Po lice Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 16 inquired the complaint. As both parties agreed to settle the matter between themselves, he recorded the statement of compromise Ex. P.8 from them and closed the case. Even after that, the harassment continued and on 25-9-1988, deceased Velumani jumped into the well with her six months old child. P.W. 2 who got into the well, with the assistance of some others, was able to save only the child but Velumani drowned and her body alone was taken out of the next day. Message was sent to P.Ws. 1 and 4, the brothers of Velumani, and her parents the death of Velumani. P.W. 1 on learning from the neighbours that his sister Velumani was harassed and beaten on that morning and was driven to commit suicide, he lodged a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi, who directed for investigation. As it was a suspicious death, the complaint was registered under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure and P.W. 18, the Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar) held the inquest and submitted the report Exs. P-11 and P.W. 19, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the inves tigation and filed the charge-sheet against these respondents. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, considering the evidence of the witnesses on the prosecution side, has found that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused and therefore acquitted the accused. Challenging this order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, P.W. 1 has come forward with this private revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. P. K. Rajagopal submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, without under standing the purport of Sections 304-B, I.P.C. and 113-B of the Evidence Act, has shifted the burden of proof upon the prosecution in this case, though it is shown by the prosecution by abundant evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harass ment for dowry and therefore the Court should have presumed in this case that the death of Velumani was due to the harassment by the accused unless the accused was able to prove that death was on account of some other reasons and therefore in this case, there is patent error in the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, leading to the miscarriage of justice.