BOOPATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein, who is an accused in S.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, stands convicted for the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w 306 I.P.C and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 498-A I.P.C to undergo and seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 304-B r/w 306 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Jothi got married to the son of the accused about one year prior to the occurrence. After marriage, both the husband and wife lived in the house at Vadakku Street along with the accused, mother-in-law of the deceased. THE accused used to demand dowry after the marriage and she often quarrelled with the deceased and demanded jewels and money to be brought by the deceased. THE accused abused the deceased in filthy language. THE deceased complained this matter to her husband and her husband also questioned his mother and asked her not to indulge in such sort of abuse. Normally the husband of the deceased go to the job and return back after two or three days as he was a lorry driver. On 07.09.2003 at about 4.00 p.m., the day on which the deceased husband also was away from the house, the accused demanded three sovereigns of jewels to be brought by the deceased and the accused also abused her in filthy language. THE deceased unable to bear such abuse went and locked herself into the room and poured kerosene and set fire. THE neighbours also assembled in the house and P.W.6 and others broke open the door and the deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused. P.W.8, the doctor examined her. THE deceased informed the doctor that she herself set fire by pouring kerosene. Ex.P.3 is the Accident Register of the deceased issued by P.W.8 and she was admitted in the hospital. P.W.8, the doctor gave a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the patient Jothi. P.W.12, the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram after receiving the requisition went to the hospital at 10.50 p.m.,on 07.09.2003 and recorded the dying declaration-Ex.P.10 which is attested by the doctor, P.W.8. On 08.09.2003, the Sub Inspector of Police of Marudhur Police station received the complaint Ex.P.13 given by the deceased and Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report. P.W.14 prepared the observation mahazar and recovered articles from the scene of occurrence and also examined the witnesses. On 08.09.2003, the deceased was transferred from Government Hospital, Chidambaram to the private hospital Kanna Hospital and she was admitted as in patient. THEreafter on 08.11.2003, the deceased died in the hospital and intimation was also sent to the police. THE First Information Report was altered by incorporating the additional penal sections viz., 302 and 304 I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and alteration report, Ex.P.17 was prepared. P.W.11, the Revenue Divisional Officer held the inquest on 08.11.2003 at 2.20 p.m. He recorded the statement of witnesses and also the accused. He prepared the inquest report Ex.P.9. According to the Revenue Divisional Officer, it was not a case of dowry death. After the inquest the body was sent for post mortem examination. THE doctors P.W.9 and P.W.10 conducted the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased. Ex.P.8 is the post mortem certificate. THE doctors opined that the deceased died of 70% burns with scepticamiea. P.W.14, the Deputy Superintendent of Police after completing the investigation laid the final report for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the Revenue Divisional Officer's enquiry, there was no dowry demand and P.Ws 1 to 3 were related to the deceased and they have not stated anything during the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer about any dowry demand. LEARNED counsel further pointed out that even from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, it is seen that the accused has not demanded any dowry and the jewels and articles were given voluntarily at the time of marriage. LEARNED counsel for the appellant further submitted that even as per the statement given by the deceased to the police there was only a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the date of occurrence and mere abusing the deceased would not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC.