P4 was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police.PW.14/Balasubramaniam, who had taken up the investigation, had immediately, on receipt of the F.I.R, visited the place of occurrence and prepared Rough Sketch, which was marked as Ex.Further, on the same day at 9.30 p.m., he had prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Viz., Sekar and Siva and recovered a black colour shawl under a mahazar which was marked as Ex.(iii) PW.7 had stated that on 26.03.2007, while he was returning homehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 after attending his work, he had heard that the deceased/Suriyakala had committed suicide and that the Police prepared an observation mahazar and that he had attested the same.No other materials were recovered from the place.The signature of PW.7 in the observation mahazar, was marked as Ex.Thereafter, PW.14 had examined PW.1/Mugunthan, PW.3/Gopinathan and other witnesses and PW.7/Sekar and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he had sent a requisition to the RDO to conduct an enquiry, since the death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage.(iv) PW.12/Sangeetha, is the RDO, she had based on the requisition and the F.I.R taken up the case for enquiry and conducted inquest and she had examined the witnesses Viz., Asaithambi and Kanniappan (relatives of the deceased) and recorded their statements separately.P.C to underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Sections 304 (B) and 498A of IPC.The alteration report was marked as Ex.Thereafter, the shawl which was used for committing suicide was sent under Form 95 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court.Form 95 was marked as Ex.On 27.03.2007 at 4.00 p.m., PW.14 arrested the 1st respondent/accused and sent him to judicial remand.On 27.04.2007 PW.2 was enquired and recorded his statement.During the examination of PW.2, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked on his admission and during the examination of PW.14, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked.PW.14 had further stated that on 15.05.2007, he examined the witnesses Viz., Meenakshi, Rajalakshmi and further examined Palusami and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he had enquired the Medical Officer, who had conducted the Post mortem.PW.13/Dr.Kuppusamy is the professor of Law Medicine, he had stated that on 27.03.2007, while he was on duty, he had conducted Autopsy of the victim on the requisition of RDO, Ponneri.The requisition letter was marked as Ex.On the same day, he along with Doctor/Udhayasankar had conducted Autopsy and it was completed by at 1.00 p.m., The viscera was sent for analysis.The report of the viscera was marked as Ex.Since there was no evidence of poisoning, he given an opinion stating that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.The Post Mortem report was marked as Ex.Thereafter, PW.14, had on 02.05.2007, examined the witnesses Viz., Thuraipandiyan, Ramasami Muthuramalingan and recorded their statements and later on receipt of the report of RDO on 20.06.2007, the case was altered to under Sections 498A, and 304(B) of IPC.The further alteration report was marked as Ex.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgement dated 18.08.2009 in S.C.No.9 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee, Chennai, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 498 (A), 306 & 304 (B) of IPC.Further the accused had demanded dowry in the form of jewels and cash along with car and further harassed the deceased and her father to get job for A-1 also in a big company and also pressured them to secure a college seat for A-6 in a college nearby Chennai and they have in numerous ways badly treated the deceased due to which the deceased/Suryakala committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial house itself.The complaint was preferred before the respondent police who registered the case in T-1 Ambattur Police Station Crime No.211/2007 initially under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. During investigation since the witnesses,the relatives of the deceased had stated that there was demand of dowry in the form of cash and jewels and a car and further there was harassment and since the death had happened within seven years of marriage the case was altered and final report was filed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 306 & 304 (B) of IPC .The case was taken on file in S.C.No.9 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee, Chennai.The respondents/accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the respondents/accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14, marked Exs.P1 to P.15, M.O.1and Exs.D1 to Ex.D8 were marked on the side of the respondents/accused.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondents/accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the respondents/accused have come with the version denying certain allegations and explaining certain circumstances leading to the deceased committing suicide and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.This appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal.He would submit that PW.2 had spoken about the demand made at the time of the marriage and also the deceased having spoken to him about the demand of dowry made soon before her death.Further, PW.2, the father and PW.8, the mother have deposed that the victim had informed them that the father-in-law and mother-in-law have caused cruelty on her.He would further submit that earlier prior to the occurrence the victim had been sent back to her parental home on account of demand of dowry and on the date of occurrence the victim had spoken to PW.2 and PW.8 about the cruelty committed on her with regard to demand of dowry and when there is ample evidence to prove the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, the trial Court had onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 wrong appreciation of law and facts had acquitted the respondents/accused.He would further submit that the finding of the trial court is illegal and perverse.The learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused would submit that absolutely there is no evidence that the victim was subjected to cruelty or that there was demand of dowry soon before her death.He would also submit that it is the categoric evidence of PW.5 that the deceased used to come her house to make phone calls and that on the date of occurrence, she had come to the house of PW.5 and that she had stated that she was frightened and afraid and that she wanted to call her husband and that it is the evidence of PW.5 and PW.10 that she had spoken to her husband and other than the oral evidence of PW.2 and PW.8 no evidence has been let in by the prosecution that the victim spoke to them prior to her death regarding demand of dowry.Further PW.2 and PW.8 have not stated that prior to the date of occurrence, the victim had spoken to them and no scientific evidence had been let in by the prosecution to prove that the deceased spoke to PW.2 and PW.8 on the date of occurrence and thereby, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.8 that the deceased spoken to them on the particular day, cannot be believed.He would further submit that it is the admitted case that the other respondents were not residing along with the 1st respondent/accused and the deceased and that they were initially not added as accused during investigation and that only at the time of filing final report they were arrayed as accused.The learned counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the learned Trial Judge after analyzing the evidence rendered a finding the death of the victim was not due to any harassment due to demand of dowry soon before her death and that the victim had committed suicide due to depression and fear had acquitted the respondents/accused giving benefit of doubt.The learned counsel for the respondents/accused would further submit that in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC, the ingredients that have to be proved by the prosecution are that (i) the death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, (ii) it is within seven years of her marriage and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.He would further submit that the presumption as to dowry death can be activated only upon proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death and that such a proof is thus the Legislatively mandated pre-requisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence.He would further submit that there should be a live link between the cruelty emanating from a dowry demand and the death of a young married woman should first raise a presumption against the woman.However, before raising the presumption against the accused, the prosecution should prove the foundational facts.However, in this case, the prosecution has not let in evidence to show that there was demand of dowry soon before her death or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry to soon before her death.Admittedly, the deceased and the respondents/accused are close relatives and that the marriage had happened 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence and all the averments in the evidence of the father, mother, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased are in respect of things which had happened at the time of marriage and absolutely, no evidence is let in by the prosecution that soon before her death, there was demand of dowry, whereas, it is the categoric evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 who are neighbors and P.W.10 who is colleague of A-1/Udhayashankar, who have specifically spoken having knownhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 about the depression suffered by the deceased due to fear and it is the specific evidence of PW.5 that soon before the alleged occurrence, the deceased had come to her house and informed her that she was afraid and that it had been informed to the 1st respondent/accused through his colleague PW.10 and their evidence is clear that the reason for the death of the deceased is not due to demand of any dowry or cruelty committed on her.Admittedly, the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were living at Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai and that there is no allegation against them that they have demanded any dowry or any amount in the recent past and thereby, the learned Trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused.In this case while looking into the evidence, the prosecution witnesses can be classified as follows:-, Asaithambi, Thandiayappan, Kaleeshwaran, Kasthuri, Pappathi and Shobana and altered the case from under Section 174 (3) Cr.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 Report of RDO was marked as Ex.P15 (Ex.P15 had been marked as under protest).Thereafter, the 4th respondent/Jawagar was arrested and let out on bail and respondents 2, 3 and 5 were granted anticipatory bail and after obtaining opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the final report had been filed.Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 have stated that they were residing at Sivagangh District and that they do not know what transpired at Chennai.Further, they had given a written explanation wherein, the 1 st respondent had stated that the deceased was his first cousin being the daughter of his own aunt, who is the elder sister of their father and that there was no demand of dowry and that since they were all relatives, the marriage expenses were shared between them Further, due to close relationship no dowry was taken and further that the deceased while studying school and college she was in the hostel along with co-students and that since she was alone in the house athttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Chennai and that since they did not have any issues after marriage she was in depression and thereafter, she had studied Library Science from her father's house and thereafter, she had come back to Chennai and that their respective names were deleted from their family card and transferred to Chennai and that since she was alone at Chennai, she was under the state of depression and fear and that on 26.03.2004, she had gone to the house of the neighbour PW.5/Shobana and informed her and that she was afraid and PW.5/Shobana had called the management staff of PW.10 and that later he consoled the victim to be at home stating that he would come back soon and that when he had come back home, he had seen that the door of the house was locked from inside and that the victim had committed suicide and he had stated that the victim had committed suicide due to depression and since they did not have a child.Whereas, the parents of the victim unable to accept that their daughter had committed suicide due to depression for not having a child had given a false complaint as if there was demand of dowry.The learned Trial Judge, after analyzing the entire evidence and materials on record, has found that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death.The learned Trial Judge, finding that the essential requirements of the charges against the respondents/accused having not been proved had acquitted the respondents/accused.I have carefully analyzed the evidence and materials on record andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 the judgment of the Trial Court.As stated above PW.1, PW.3 PW.5 and PW.10 are independent witnesses.It is the admitted evidence of PW.14 that the 1st respondent/accused was working in Chennai and the 5th respondent/accused was studying at Chennai and that respondents 2, 3 and 4 were residing at their native place at Thirupuvanam.Likewise, the parents of the deceased and the relatives of the deceased are also residing at Sivagangah District.Excepting an omnibus allegation made against the respondents in general with regard to demand of dowry, no specific evidence had been let in with regard to the demand of dowry.The independent witnesses who are the neighbours of the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused have categorically deposed that there was no problem between them in the matrimonial home.The Investigating Officer/PW.14 has also confirmed the same.PW.1 in his examination in chief had stated that there was no matrimonial issues or problems between the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused.PW.3 is the neighbour, who has also deposed that when he was examined by the Police, he had stated that there was no matrimonial disputes or issues between the 1 st respondent/accused and the deceased.PW.14 is the Investigation Officer has also corroborated that when hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 had examined the witnesses in the neighborhood, they have also stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused.There is evidence in the case that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was in disturbed state of mind as she was in the grip of fear.The evidence of PW.5 and PW.10 had been corroborated by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 evidence of PW.3, husband of PW.5, who had stated that he was informed by his wife that on the date of occurrence, the victim had come to his house and informed about her fear and that his wife had told him that she had contacted the 1st respondent/accused.Further while analysing the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, the crux of the allegations against the respondents/accused are that the respondents/accused demanded dowry to secure a job for the deceased and that the 1st respondent/accused had an illegal affair with a lady namely Sudha and the respondents demanded to secure admission for the 5 th respondent in an Engineering College.Further, the allegations of the witnesses regarding demand of dowry are vague and bald without even referring to the particular date, period or occasion and the versions of the witnesses which had been stated before the Trial Court seem to be exaggerated versions.Further, the parents of the deceased had stated that they have spoken to their daughter, the deceased on the day of occurrence.It is neither been supported by the evidence of PW.5, the neighbour nor by any scientific evidence.No investigation has been done by the respondent police with regard to such telephonic conversation stated to have been made between the deceased and her parents on the date of occurrence.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Chennai (T-1 Ambattur Police Station.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Cited provisions: Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code