2006 Supreme(SC) 200

2006(3) Supreme 763
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
T. Aruntperunjothi—Appellant
versus
State Though S.H.O., Pondicherry—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2005
Decided on 5-3 2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Mahlakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, (for M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondent : R. Sundaravaradan Sr. Advocate, V.G. Pragasam and G.N. Reddy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If there was a case misunderstanding between accused husband and deceased wife and deceased committed suicide same would not automatically lead to conclusion that appellant committed offence u/s 304B IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304B—Dowry death—Essential ingredients of offence—Prosecution must establish that deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband soon before her death—What would constitute "soon before her death" depends upon facts and circumstances of each case—Deceased was married to appellant on 4.9.1992 and gave birth to female child at her parents house—She was brought back to appellant’s home in February, 1994 and on 14.3.1994 she committed suicide in appellant’s house—Appellant or his mother PW1 were not at home when deceased committed suicide—Family members of deceased allowed cremation of dead body and took back all articles which were given at time of the marriage and did not lodge any report—Appellant himself informed police and Deputy Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate conducted enquiry and on his report case was registered—Evidence led by prosecution failed to establish involvement of appellant as regards alleged demand of dowry—Trial Court did not give cogent reason for disbelieving evidence of PW1, mother of appellant, that deceased was short tempered girl and evidence of PW2 who had met deceased 1/2 hour before incident and had found her normal—If it was case of misunderstanding between accused and deceased same would not bring case under dowry death—Conviction was liable to be set aside.

       Held : The conduct of the family members of tile deceased, in the aforementioned backdrop, assumes importance. They did not make any complaint themselves. It was the appellant who lodged the first information report. On the basis of the said first information report, an investigation must have been commenced. It was stated to be a case of unnatural death. However, an enquiry was made by the Tahsildar. Before him only for the first time, some statement had been made by some of the prosecution witnesses. We have noticed hereinbefore that the members of the Panchayat did not state anything about the cause of the death.(Para 36)

       It, therefore, appears that no cogent evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to establish that the appellant had demanded any dowry. It would bear repetition to state that according to the mother of the deceased, PW-7 only PW-3 demanded dowry and only he was responsible for the death of her daughter. If that be so, he should have also been prosecuted. The trial court has not given any cogent reason for disbelieving the evidence of PW -1; upon whom even the prosecution placed reliance. The statement of PW -1 that the deceased was short tempered girl has not been discarded. The statement of PW -2 that even 1/2 hour before committing suicide the deceased behaved normally had also not been taken into consideration. The prosecution did not cross-examine PW-3, except making some suggestions; although he was declared hostile. Even the trial court did not discard the explanation given by the accused as regard suicide of the deceased. It proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence either directly or indirectly as regard harassment or cruelty committed by the appellant against his wife and there are only circumstantial evidence therefor. The necessary ingredients of circumstantial evidence for holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence had not been deliberated upon either by the trial court or by the High Court. Even an attempt had been made to show that the accused had on an earlier occasion tried to murder the deceased but the same was found to be false by the trial court holding that there was no evidence that the "accused had already attempted to burn away his wife".(Paras 37 & 38)

       The trial court proceeded on the basis that as if PW-3 was acting as a messenger, although there was no evidence in this behalf. It was held by the trial court that ‘the insistence of the PW-3 revealed that what was demanded by PW-3 was a dowry demand. We fail to understand as to how a so-called , misunderstanding or a hypothesis could be made the basis for conviction. There was no reason to disbelieve that the defence version that the cause of death was that she had insisted to go to her mothers house but she was not allowed, was plausible. Having regard to the peculiar features of the case, we are of the opinion that demand of dowry or any harassment being the cause for the death of the deceased, cannot be said to have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.(Paras 40 to 42)