IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02.11.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.A.No.983 of 2004 State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Sub Division Periyanaickenpalayam Coimbatore District. .. Appellant/Complainant Vs. 1.Mohamed Iliyas 2.Mumtaz .. Respondents/Accused Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 25.3.2003 made in S.C.No.390 of 2002 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr.C.Balasubramanian, APP For Respondents : Mr.C.D.Johnson J U D G E M E N T This appeal is filed by the complainant state represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police against the order of acquittal of A1 and A2 from the charges constituting the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.The prosecution case is as follows: PW1 and PW2 are the husband and wife and the deceased Hussaina Banu. PW3 Jailani, PW4 Nazer and PW5 Parveen are their sons and daughters and PW6 Banu and PW7 Jinnabai and DW4 Kabir are their relatives. PW1 to PW8 and DW1 and DW2, who are related to the accused and DW3 to DW5 are the residents of Tiruppur. Hussaina Banu since deceased, who is the eldest daughter of PW1 and PW2, was given in marriage to A1 and at the time of marriage, the bride was presented with jewels weighing 15 sovereigns and cash. After the marriage, the deceased Hussaina Banu along with her husband and mother-in-law lived at Belladhi Village near Karamadai. 3.While so, Pws were informed on 18.3.2002 that the said Hussaina Banu committed suicide by consuming poison and her family members had been to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and saw her dead body and thereafter, PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint at Karamadi Police Station raising https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suspicion about the cause of death of her daughter Hussaina Banu. Since the death of Hussaina Banu occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage, FIR was forwarded to PW16-PA to Collector. PW16 on receipt of FIR dated 19.3.2002 in Crime no.1/2002 for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and 174 Cr.P.C held inquest on the dead body on 20.3.2002 and held enquiry in the course of inquest and recorded statement from panchayathars and other family members. As the statement of panchayathars did not disclose any harassment for dowry on the part of in-laws, FIR was forwarded to PW17 for investigation and the outcome of which is the charge sheet filed against the accused 1 and 2 for the offences as referred to above. 4.The charges framed against the accused are that A1 and A2 made unlawful demand for dowry and subjected the deceased to harassment and compelled her to comply with such demand and due to harassment, she was driven to commit suicide by consuming poison thereby the accused committed the acts constituting the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5.The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against he accused, examined the parents, brothers, sister and relatives of the deceased and observation mahazar witnesses, seizure mahazar witnesses and the revenue and police officials, who held inquest and enquiry and who received the complaint and held investigation and the post mortem doctor as PW1 to PW17 and produced complaint, observation mahazar, seizure mahazar, post mortem certificate, viscera report, chemical examination report, FIR, inquest report, and rough sketch as Exs.P1 to P11, besides MO1 Aluminium box as material object. The accused examined 6 witnesses as DW1 to DW6 and produced Ex.D1 prescription on their side. 6.The trial court on the basis of available evidence did not accept the prosecution case regarding probable cause for the act of suicide committed by the deceased. The trial court, having found that there was no demand much less dowry demand and there was no harassment of the deceased by A1 and A2 and it was the deceased who frequently attempted to commit suicide because of her suicidal tendency and the accused had in no manner contributed to her end, acquitted both the accused from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal by the complainant before this court. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state seriously questioned the finding of acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court on the ground that the trial court overlooked convincing oral statement of the family members of the deceased. It is seriously argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the oral evidence of the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, who are more competent to speak about the act of demand and harassment of the deceased to comply with such demand, is natural, clear and cogent and is sufficient enough to make out the prosecution theory and the order of acquittal overlooking the same suffers from irregularity and perversity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused would by highlighting the absence of any evidence on the prosecution side to point out the willful conduct of the accused in making unlawful dowry demand and harassment of the deceased and by relying on the oral and documentary evidence of PW16-RDO and Ex.P9 inquest report and also oral and documentary evidence adduced on their side, defend the finding of acquittal of the accused rendered by the trial court. 9.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 10.The fact that the deceased Hussaina Banu, who is none else than the daughter of PW1 and PW2 and sister of PW3 to PW6 and wife and daughter-in-law of A1 and A2, died on 18.3.2002 by committing suicide by consuming pesticide, which is poisonous in nature, is not seriously denied. The deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage on 19.3.1995. It is not in dispute that she has been, after her marriage, continuously living in her matrimonial house at Karamadai and gave two children in the course of wed lock. 11.The criminal law is set in motion against A1 and A2 on the basis of Ex.P1 complaint given by PW1. The reading of Ex.P1 complaint would reveal that PW1 did not raise any allegation against A2 mother-in-law and Pws have also in the witness box categorically admitted the same. The allegation raised against A1-husband is that he started demanding 5 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/-, which was given extra to the second daughter of PW1 at the time of her marriage and the demand was made after the marriage of PW1's second daughter was over. The complaint further proceeds as if A1/ husband used to frequently pick up quarrel with his daughter in connection with such demand and the daughter inturn used to visit his house and PW1 and his relatives used to send her back. However, the complaint did not contain any serious allegation to the effect that A1 had in furtherance of such demand harassed or ill- treated and subjected the deceased to any act of cruelty and no explanation is forth coming from Pws for their failure to make any specific allegation against the accused in the complaint. Pws have also in the witness box not raised any serious allegation against either A1 or A2. Though Pws do come forward with some improved version about the act of A1 in shouting at his wife and in his assaulting her once and in picking up quarrel with her, they do not complain about any unlawful demand for more jewels and cash. The combined appreciation of the evidence of Pws in the chief as well as in their cross examination would reveal that their statements made in the course of their chief examination is given up in the course of their cross examination. On the contrary, there are sufficient and satisfactory materials in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses and the same coupled with material evidence adduced on the side of the accused go to falsify the prosecution theory. 12.As already referred to above, PW16-RDO held inquest and enquiry, in the course of which, he was informed by Panchayathar and others that neither A1 nor A2 was guilty of any act of cruelty and there was no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demand for dowry and the deceased was frequently attempted to commit suicide and the elders used to advice her not to indulge in such act. The statement of panchayathars to inquest did reveal that the deceased was in suicidal temperament and attempted to commit suicide for more than once on earlier occasion and the deceased met her end by committing suicide by consuming poison. Similar statement is also made by DWs in the course of their examination on the side of the defence. Out of 5 independent witnesses examined on the side of the accused, DW4-sister's son of PW1, would only support the defence theory that the deceased had suicidal tendency and she attempted to commit suicide for more than once and the same is also admitted by few of her family members in the course of their cross examination. The evidence of DW5, who is the neighbour of A1 and A2 would also reiterate the same theory. It is deposed by him in the chief examination that the deceased used to insist her husband/A1 to shift to bigger house and when A1 expressed his inability to do so, she used to make huge cry and she poured kerosene and ran out of the house and thereafter she was brought inside and advised by PW5. There was no effective cross examination of DW5 by the prosecution in this regard. 13.Further, the evidence of DW2 gold smith would reveal that it is A1 who made all efforts to get jeweleries for the second daughter of PW1 in connection with her marriage. It is categorically deposed by him that A1 approached him for making jewels and he did all acts in purchasing the materials and paying the money and in collecting the jewels. His evidence would further reveal that PW1 did not pay the entire money for jewels and it is A1 who paid the balance amount in instalments to DW2 and his evidence would contradict the prosecution case that A1 started demanding valuables and cash after PW1's second daughter marriage was over. Had it been true, he would not have rendered all assistance to his father-in-law in the marriage arrangements. If the evidence of DW2 and DW4 is viewed in the light of the evidence of PW16, and in the conduct of Pws in not raising any allegation against A2 and in not making serious allegation against A1 either in the complaint or in the witness box, it would compel this court to agree with the trial court, which has rightly negatived the prosecution case and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them and the same does not deserve any interference by this court. 14.In the result, the Criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar(CO) 17.3.2014 /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rk To 1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore. 2. -do- thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Sub Division Periyanaickenpalayam Coimbatore District. 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court,Madras. VD(CO) km/19.3. Crl.A.No.983 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/