S ARUMUGAM; S VANASUNDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.07.2007 in S.C.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram, convicting the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and they were also convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction, is that the first appellant/A1 is the son and the second appellant/A2 is his mother. The marriage between A1 and the deceased Renuka took place on 10.02.2006. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of jewels and other "Sreedhana" (seervarisai) articles were given to her by the parents of the deceased Renuka, namely P.Ws.1 and 2. After marriage, the deceased was living in her matrimonial home in Mangalam Village, but right from the day one, A1 and A2 were continuously harassing the deceased by demanding dowry. She was asked to do the house-hold chores, like grazing the cattle, clearing the cow-dung, etc. The deceased has complained about the same over telephone 2/3 times to her parents. While so, on 21.10.2006, the first appellant/A1 told the deceased to bring 1 sovereign of jewels from her parents and he took her to her parents' house and left her there and he came back. On 29.10.2006, the mother of the deceased, i.e. P.W.2, gave 1/2 sovereign of jewels and left the deceased in her matrimonial home. Inspite of the same, the first appellant/A1 abused the deceased and harassed her. Hence, on 30.10.2006 at about 7 p.m., by consuming insecticide containing "Demachron", she committed suicide. The first appellant/A1 called the brother of the deceased, i.e. P.W.4 Suresh and informed him that his sister Renuka consumed poison and hence, she was going to be admitted in hospital. Immediately, the parents of the deceased, namely P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the hospital, where they found only the dead body of her daughter. Next day, i.e. on 31.10.2006 at about 7 a.m, P.W.1, the father of the deceased, lodged Ex.P-1 complaint before the Police Station. P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.270 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and Ex.P-9 FIR was prepared. Since the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage, P.W.8 forwarded the complaint to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer for further action. P.W.3 RDO conducted preliminary enquiry in the hospital in respect of the death of the deceased at about 12.30 a.m (on the mid-night of 30.10.2006) and subsequently, based on Ex.P-2 requisition letter, dated 31.10.2006, along with the FIR and the complaint, which were sent by the then Sub-Inspector of Police of G-3 Saalavakkam Police Station, P.W.3 RDO conducted inquest in respect of the death of the deceased and issued Ex.P-3 inquest report and P.W.8 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and also recorded the statements of other witnesses. Exs.P-5 and P-6 are the statements of A1 and A2 respectively recorded by P.W.3 RDO. Ex.P-7 is the letter submitted by P.W.3 RDO to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, forwarding the inquest report and post-mortem certificate as requested by the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.9 Dr.Parasakthi conducted autopsy/post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 31.10.2006 and issued Ex.P-10 post-mortem certificate. P.W.10 DSP conducted investigation in the case, went to the scene of occurrence on 31.10.2006 at about 12 noon and followed all formalities. P.W.10 DSP arrested both A1 and A2 on 01.11.2006 and brought them to the Police Station and sent them for remand and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-8 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-13 rough sketch, in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. He examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. Subsequently, P.W.11 DSP continued the investigation and took the CD file and recorded the statements of witnesses and also recorded the statement of P.W.9 Doctor who conducted autopsy. After completing all formalities, P.W.11 DSP completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC. The case was taken on file by the trial Court in S.C.No.37 of 2007. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked. When the appellants/A1 and A2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, the first appellant/A1 was examined as D.W.4, apart from D.Ws.1 to 3 and they have marked Exs.D-1 and D-2. The trial Court, upon hearing both sides and on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants/A1 and A2 as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 submitted that absolutely, there is no evidence to attract the offences under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 304-B IPC, there should be an evidence to the effect that soon before her (deceased) death, she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and then only such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Hence, learned counsel submitted that absolutely, there is no evidence to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by either A1/husband or A2/mother-in-law. He further stated that in fact, the defence has placed their case of rebutting presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act by examining four witnesses, namely D.Ws.1 to 3, who are independent witnesses, apart from D.W.4 (first appellant/A1). Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 shows that the deceased did not like her marriage with the first appellant/A1 and she was having affair with another person in her place, but the parents of the deceased had given her in marriage with the first appellant/A1 against her wishes. Thus, by examining D.Ws.1 to 4, the appellants have rebutted the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.