PW3 is their son.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.9.It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnised between A1 and the deceased.PW1 gave Ex.However, it is seen from the evidence of PW4 that the deceased was living separate and he had sent to the house of A1 an advised all the accused to take the deceased into matrimonial fold.PW4 further stated before PW14 that the accused demanded dowry.12.PW1 and PW2 stated during their evidence that due to the dowry demand by the accused, their daughter came to their house and only PW1 requested Ex-President to mediate it and after the mediation, their daughter went to her matrimonial house and after six months again all the accused demanded dowry and the deceased was driven to her parental home and the sister of A1 told that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and then only PW1 and the deceased went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint and the accused persons went to Aruppukottai Police Station for enquiry and then, they went nearby way of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 property of PW1 and threatened PW1 saying that they will severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, their daughter committed suicide.13.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.PW3 deposed that at the time of marriage, his sister was given 15 sovereign of jewels and Rs.15,000/- cash and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after the marriage, all the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and her sister came to their house and stated that she was harassed by the accused demanding dowry and his father was not to able to give Rs.50,000/- and due to it, his sister was in their house and his father requested PW4 to mediate the matter and in the mediation, A1 accepted to take back his sister and after six months, the accused again demanded dowry and his sister came to their house and in the meanwhile, the sister of A1 stated that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and due to it, his sister gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and all the accused were called by the police for enquiry and while, they were proceeding near their garden, they threatened his sister by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between his sister and A1 and due to it, his sister committed suicide.http://www.judis.nic.in 914.It is stated on the side of the revision petitioners that due to misunderstanding between A1 and the deceased, the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, it was not proved on the side of the revision petitioner that due to misunderstanding, the deceased left the matrimonial home.But PW1 to PW3 have categorically stated that due to dowry demand, the deceased left the matrimonial home.No contra evidence let in on the side of the accused to prove that due to misunderstanding the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the accused stating that the deceased went to her matrimonial home only due to misunderstanding is not at all acceptable.15.In this case, in order to prove that for the dowry demand by the accused, the deceased gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and the accused were called by the Police and Ex.P6 complaint was produced on the side of the prosecution.16.PW10 spoke about the receiving of Ex.This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.130 of 2005 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, dated 10.12.2009, which was modified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, in Crl.2.According to the prosecution, PW1 and PW2 are husband and wife.The marriage between the deceased and A1 Muniyandi had solemnised on 17.06.1999 and at the time of marriage, the deceased was provided with 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs.30,000/-.After marriage, the deceased had beaten by the accused and other accused by demanding Rs.50,000/-.In this regard, a complaint was given by the deceased Murugeswari on 27.08.2004 before the All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai and thereafter, she was found to be hanged in a mango tree.The Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a final report against the accused by examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 18 witnesses were examined and 12 Exhibits and one material object were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convicted A1 to A5 and sentenced them to undergo 7 years R/I each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S/I for one year each under Section 304(B) IPC and one year R/I under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default SI for 3 months each.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, A1 to A5 preferred appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2009, which was heard by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the first appellate court, A1 to A5 as revision petitioners are before this court.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and that the first appellate court failed to consider the fact that the accused found guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 when the accused are innocent in respect of Section 304(B) IPC and that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and that PW1 to PW3 are close relatives and their testimony is interested one and that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW4 who is the independent and truthful witness and the first appellate failed to appreciate the fact that the death of the deceased was happened in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home and that the first appellate court failed to consider Exs.P6 and P7 in a proper manner and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.In view of the above circumstances, the impugned judgment has to be set aside and the revision petition has to be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first appellate court on proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted the revision petitioners and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused are not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.P1 complaint in respect of the occurrence.10.PW1 in his complainant and evidence stated that at the time of marriage, the deceased was given 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after marriage, all the accused harassed the deceased and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and drove thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 deceased to her parental home and the deceased came to his house and told him about the demand of dowry by the accused, but he expressed his inability to pay the amount and asked his daughter to stay with him and the deceased stayed in her parental home for one year and the Ex-President of his village mediated between the two families and then, the deceased went to her matrimonial home and after six months, all the accused again harassed his daughter by way of demanding Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, A1, A2 and A4 went to Theni for their avocation ad the sister of A1 talked that when the deceased failed to bring Rs.50,000/-, they are going to arrange another marriage for A1 and therefore, PW1 and the deceased went to the All Women Police Station, Arupukottai and gave a complaint regarding the demand of dowry by the accused and the police enquired all the accused and his daughter told him, while going to the police station that all the accused stated that they are going to severe the martial tie between A1 and the deceased and then, at about 10.00 am on the same day, he heard noise and found that his daughter hanged herself in a mango tree and then, he found that his daughter was dead and then he gave Ex.P1 Complaint.http://www.judis.nic.in 711.PW4 was examined to speak about the panchayat held for reuniting the deceased and A1 and with regard to demand of dowry and other facts.Since PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness.P6 complaint and issued receipt Ex.P7 and conducted enquiry.P6 complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 was treated as petition and PW10 conducted the enquiry.In this case, while cross examining PW10 on the side of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, a suggestion was put to the effect that the deceased has not given Ex.But while cross examining PW1, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 before the trial court, put the following questions:-jhd; vy;yhtw;wpw;Fk; fhuzk; vd;why; mij ehd; kWf;fpnwd;.” Hence, from the above cross examination of PW1, it reveals that they admitted the giving of Ex.17.On perusal of Ex.P6, the deceased stated the details of demand of dowry by the accused.Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 submitted that there is no necessity for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 to pass through the garden of PW1, while going to Aruppukottai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11PW1 during his cross examination stated that:-“ehd; bfhLj;j g[fhh; jhd; ,e;j tHf;fpw;F mog;gil fhuzk; vd;Wk;> g[fhh;20.Further, on perusal of Ex.P6 complaint, it is stated that all the accused demanded dowry and drove the deceased out of the matrimonial home and PW14 ordered for conducting enquiry and the first accused Muniyandi agreed to bring the other accused for enquiry.21.It is to be noted that Ex.But on 04.09.2004, the deceased committed suicide.Hence, it reveals that only due to the complaint given by the deceased, the accused threatened by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, she committed suicide.22.Further, in this case, it is pertinent to note that in order to settle the dispute between A1 and the deceased, no case was registered.Further, it is a matrimonial dispute.Hence, PW16 conducted enquiry to settle the dispute between the parties.Hence, it is not necessary to suspect Exs.23.On careful perusal of Ex.P1, it shows that all the accused harassed and committed cruelty on the deceased by way of demanding a dowry of Rs.50,000/- one year after her marriage and the deceased was driven out of matrimonial home.Further, PW1, who is the father of the deceased was not able to mobilise the dowry amount and therefore, the deceased stayed at his house for one year and thereafter, PW4/Patchamal effected compromise and the deceased was reunited with her husband and six monthshttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 thereafter, all the accused harassed the deceased again and sent her out of matrimonial home and thereafter, the deceased lived with PW1 until her suicide.24.In view of the above facts, this court is of the considered view that only due to the demand of dowry, the deceased was driven out of her matrimonial home and she lived in her parental home and only due to the harassment by the accused, she gave the complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and in the Police Station, all the accused were called for enquiry and due to the threat by the accused by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie, the deceased committed suicide.25.This court, after going through the records, is of the considered view that the first appellate Court has not committed any mistake or error in rendering a finding hold the revision petitioners/A1 and A5 guilty of the offence with which they stood charged.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, this Court finds that the punishment imposed on the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 requires modification.http://www.judis.nic.in 1426.In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, the punishment imposed by the first appellate court is reduced to three months of Rigorous Imprisonment.Further, the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each children of the deceased namely Poorvika (6-1/2 years) and Jeyashree (9 months), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Since the children of the deceased are minors, the compensation amount shall be deposited in Recurring Deposit Scheme in the Bank of India, Mandapasalai Branch, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, till they attained majority.The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.26.11.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 To,1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.546 of 2010 26.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl.RC(MD)No.167 of 2009http://www.judis.nic.in 18 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J This matter is posted today under the caption “For reporting compliance.”2.When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of this court, dated 20.08.2018 has been complied with and he has also filed a memo, dated 02.11.2018 to that effect.3.Today, as per the order of this Court, the revision petitioner gave two demand drafts bearing registration Nos. 314334 and 314335 for Rs.1,00,000/- each to the son and daughter of the deceased Malathi @ Chandra namely R.Pavithra and Naveen Balaji, which were also received by them.4.Recording the above, this criminal revision is closed.02.11.2018 er T.KRISHNAVALLI,Jhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 Crl.R.C(MD)No.167 of 2009 02.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 20http://www.judis.nic.in

Sections cited: Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code