SUBRAMANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are A2 to A7 in C.C.No.136 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. They stood charged for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court convicted the A2,A3,A4 and A7 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and A5 and A6 are convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and acquitted all the accused. Challenging the same, the Petitioners have filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.53 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court also confirmed the same and challenging the conviction and sentence, the present revision is filed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1/de-facto complaint had got married to A1, on 15.5.2002. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 family gave 30 sovereigns of gold to A1 and also has given house-hold articles worth about Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter all the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and harassed P.W.1. A1 mortgaged the gold jewels and gone to Maldives. Thereafter, the Petitioners herein again demanded Rs.5 lakhs and harassed the de-facto complainant. Hence she has filed a compliant to the police. Based on the complaint, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.1/2005 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 406 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report for the offence under Sections 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Based on the materials available, the trial Court framed charges against the Petitioners.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution side examined 8 witnesses and marked two documents. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, according to her, after marriage both P.W.1 and A1 was living happily. Thereafter A2 and A3, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry.A1 also mortgaged 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and gone to Maldives. Thereafter onceagain the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. Bearing all these harassments, she is residing in the matrimonial home. In the year 2005, January, When A1 came to India, she explained the harassment meted by her to A1.Thereafter he also demanded dowry. Thereafter, she has given a complaint to the respondent-Police and the police also conducted enquiry, wherein A1 has given an undertaking that he will not harass the de-facto complainant. Even thereafter also, there was harassment, hence has given the complaint. P.W.2, father of P.W.1 spoke about the harassment meted out to by P.W.1 and the demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. P.W.3 mother of P.W.1 also spokes about the harassment meted by P.W.1. P.W.4 to P.W.7 panchayatdars spokes about the dispute between A1 and P.W.1. P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the complaint given by the Petitioner, and conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.