IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:14.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Crl.A.No.20 of 2003 State by: Inspector of Police, Peramabalur Police Station, Ariyalur District. ... Appellant/Complainant Vs. 1.Perumal 2.Packiam ... Respondents/Accused Criminal Appeal filed against the judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed in S.C.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and pray that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused as charged. For Appellant : Mr.N.R.Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mr.V.Illanchezian JUDGMENT The respondents herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, who are acquitted from the charges under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. Against the said acquittal, the State has preferred this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: The accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Perumal and Packiam are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased by name Malarvizhi. D.W.1-Ravishangar is the son of the accused 1 and 2. The marriage of the deceased Malarvizhi and D.W.1-Ravishangar was performed on 12.06.1994 at Rasi Marriage Hall, Perambalur. They lived happily for a period of one year and the deceased gave birth to a female child also. The first accused demanded money from the deceased saying that the cash which was given at the time of marriage was not sufficient. One year after the marriage, the son of the accused had gone to abroad and he was staying in Dubai. Once the son of the accused went abroad and returned after three months and for that he had spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- as travel expenses. The accused also demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- and insisted the deceased to get the money from her father. P.W.1 is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. (ii) P.W.1-Malarvannan went to the house of the accused and informed them that they were not in a position to pay the amount of Rs.40,000/-. After 25 days i.e., on 19.08.1998 at about 6.00 p.m. P.W.1 was informed by the first accused that the deceased poured kerosene and set fire herself. P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the house of the accused and as the deceased was alive at that time with burn injuries, she was taken to the hospital at Perambalur. As it was advised by the Doctor to take her to Trichy, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Trichy and the Doctor examined her and declared dead. P.W.1 went to Perambalur police station on the next day i.e., on 20.08.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.9, Head Constable. (iii) P.W.9-Ilangovan was the Head Constable of Perambalur police station. On 20.08.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. he received a complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.845 of 1998 for an offence under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prepared Ex.P.5, First Information Report. (iv) P.W.8-Dharmarajan, the Revenue Divisional Officer received a copy of the First Information Report-Ex.P.5 and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. He examined the witnesses and also the first accused and recorded their statements and prepared inquest report Ex.P.6. On 21.08.1998, he sent the final report Ex.P.7 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur stating that the deceased died due to dowry harassment. (v) After inquest, the body was sent for Post-mortem examination. P.W.7-Dr.Paramasivam, held autopsy on 20.08.1998 and issued Ex.P.4, Post-mortem certificate. The Doctor P.W.7 opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. (vi) P.W.10-Janakaraj, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up the investigation on the date of occurrence, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2-Observation Mahazar and recovered M.Os.1 to 3 under mahazar Ex.P.3 and also prepared Ex.P.8-Rough Sketch. He arrested the accused on 28.08.1998 at 4.00 p.m. After completing the investigation, P.W.10 filed a final report on 11.11.1998 for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. But, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused only under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) I.P.C. 3. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses; marked 8 exhibits and produced three material object. 4. After completion of the examination of witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity. The husband of the deceased was also examined as D.W.1 and exhibits D.1 to D.10 were marked through him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the deceased had committed suicide by self immolation within seven years from the date of her marriage and as there was a demand of money as dowry, the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is to be drawn. But the Trial Court had acquitted the accused erroneously. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that even if the offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C. is not made out, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is clear to the effect that the deceased was harassed by the accused by making unlawful demand of money and it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he was also informed by the deceased while she was taken to the hospital that she was harassed by her mother-in-law and as such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. are made out. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to the effect that there was a demand of dowry and on the other hand, P.W.1 had admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of marriage, the accused had not demanded any jewel or cash and the same has been given to the deceased voluntarily by P.W.1. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused further submitted that there is no harassment to the deceased in the family of the accused, but as the mother of the deceased P.W.3 was living separately from her husband P.W.2, there was some dispute among the family members and P.W.3 used to visit the house of the accused and that was not appreciated by P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the exhibits marked by the defence D.1 to D.10 would lead to show that the deceased committed suicide by self immolation only due to some pressure from her parents' house. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the evidence and other documents. 9. According to the prosecution evidence, after the marriage for a period of one year, the deceased and her husband and other family members were lived together happily and there was no harassment to the deceased. It appears that D.W.1, the husband of the deceased had gone abroad and the deceased continued to stay with her in-laws. It is now stated by P.W.1 that the first accused had demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/-, which was spent as travel expenses of D.W.1, who has gone abroad and the deceased was harassed by the accused, demanding money. Except this, no other allegation is made against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to the police. In Ex.P.1, it is not specifically mentioned that the accused demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- but it is only stated that the deceased was harassed by her mother-in-law and the deceased used to come to the house of P.W.1 and he would send https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her back after consoling her. P.W.1 also specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the accused have not demanded any jewel or cash at the time of marriage. As there was no demand of any dowry at the time of marriage, any subsequent unlawful demand cannot be termed as a demand of dowry. As per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 the definition is as follows:- "2.Definition of "dowry".- In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage:or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies." 10. In this case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the money was demanded in connection with the marriage of the deceased and her husband. Therefore, the subsequent demand made one year after the marriage even if it is accepted, it can be termed as only unlawful demand. 11. Even the unlawful demand said to have been made by the accused as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 3 is not so convincing to the Court, since it was not specifically mentioned in Ex.P.1, the complaint given by P.W.1. Further, from the defence exhibits marked viz., the letters written by P.W.3, P.W.3 was often visiting the house of the accused to see her daughter. Apart from this, there is no specific evidence in what manner the deceased was harassed or ill-treated by the accused. 12. The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt to attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. The reasons given by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused are acceptable. This Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar jrl https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur. 2.The Inspector of Police Peramabalur Police Station, Ariyalur District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.V.Illanchezhian, Advocate, Sr.No.68162 Crl.A.No.20 of 2003 KA {CO} TP/6.1.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/