UMRIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Vellore, in Crl.A.108 of 2003, which had arisen out of the judgment in C.C.No.307 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham. The revision petitioners are A1, A2 & A4. A3 died pending appeal.

(2.) THE short facts of the prosecution case is that the marriage between A1 and P.W.2-Sulthana took place some 7 years prior to the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage 30 soverigns of jewels were agreed upon to be presented by the Sulthana's parents to A1. But at the time of marriage only 25 soverigns of jewels were present by Sultana's parents. According to the complainant, after the marriage Sulthana was subjected to cruelty by the accused demanding Rs.25,000/- and the balance of 5 soverigns of gold ornaments. Hence, the accused were charged under Section 498(A) IPC and under Section 4 & 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) P.W.2-Sulthana would depose that the marriage between her and A1 took place on 19.9.1992 at Paranampet and that they have been blessed with two children and that at the time of marriage her father has given 25 soverign of gold ornaments and presented two gold rings, 10 soverign of gold chain, a wrist watch, wearing apparels and house hold articles like cot, bureau and two suit cases. Thereafter, she lived with her husband at V-Kotta at Kerala. She would depose that her matrimonial life was happy only for 20 days and thereafter she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused. According to her, as agreed at the time of the marriage, out of 30 soverigns of gold ornaments 25 soverigns of gold ornaments were given by her parents and 5 soverigns of gold ornaments remain to be given, besides this 5 soverign, according to P.W.2, the accused has also demanded Rs.1 lakh towards additional dowry. Since her health was deteriorated, she came to Peranampet with A1 and lived there and even at Peranampet, according to P.W.2, she was subjected to cruelty by demanding more 5 soverigns of gold ornaments and Rs.25,000/-. According to her, she was driven out of the matrimonial home and she was directed to bring more money and 5 soverign of gold ornaments and the accused threatened unless she brings the said amount and 5 soverigns of gold ornaments she will not be allowed to revive the matrimonial relationship, which made her to come to her parents house. She has preferred Ex.P.1-complaint.