SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused challenging the judgment of conviction, dated 26.07.2001, made in S.C.No.269 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, whereby the appellants 1 and 2 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence. Further, the first appellant/A1 was found guilty under Section 304 B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. The sentence imposed on the first appellant was ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: THE deceased Sowmya was the wife of the first appellant/A1. THE first appellant/A1 is the son of the second appellant/A2. THE first appellant and the deceased Sowmya were leading their matrimonial life at No.2, Karukathamman Koil Street, Chetpet, Chennai, and a child was also born to them. As per the prosecution case, the appellants were causing cruelty on the deceased continuously by demanding dowry. As per the complaint, Ex.P.1, the first appellant/A1 had demanded Rs.10,000/- and caused cruelty even while she was in family way. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the first appellant by the parents of Sowmya, in addition to the jewels and amount Rs.10,000/- already given during the marriage of the deceased and the first appellant. According to P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, even after the birth of the child, the first appellant/A1 was causing cruelty by beating the deceased, hence, she was in the house of her parents for about 11 months, even after the birth of the child. Subsequently, the first appellant, his younger brothers and others came to the house of P.W.1 and gave assurance that the deceased Sowmya would not be subject to cruelty. On the assurance, P.W.1 sent her daughter, the deceased with the child, but the first appellant/A1 was not satisfied with the jewels presented by the parents of Sowmya for the child. Subsequently, P.W.1 and her brothers went to the house of the appellants/accused and due to the ill treatment and cruelty met out by the deceased Sowmya there, she was brought to the house of her parents and again at the instance of the appellants, she could see the face of the elders, P.W.1 sent the deceased with the child to the house of the appellants. Subsequently, when she went to the house of the appellants, she could see the face of the deceased found swollen due to beating, but Sowmya did not say the reason, as she was scared of the appellants. On 05.10.1998 at about 7 p.m, brother of the first appellant, Kumar came to the house of P.W.1 in a van and informed that Sowmya was dead due to cholera and the dead body was kept at the Kilpauk Government Hospital. She went to Hospital and found the dead body of Sowmya with ligature mark on the neck. THEn, she gave the complaint, Ex.P.1 before the respondent police against the appellant/accused 1 and 2 that her daughter, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and done to death.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submits that there is sufficient evidence to record that there was dowry harassment and also the cruelty caused on the deceased by demanding dowry and therefore, as per Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act, the trial court has rightly drawn the presumption that the deceased died due to dowry death and therefore, there is no error in the judgment of the trial court to be interfered with.