JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant and upholding the conviction for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) recorded and imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C. No.1/2004. Several persons who had faced trial had preferred the appeal. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 i.e. present appellant were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC.

3. In appeal it was held that A-1 and A-2 were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, their conviction as recorded by the trial Court was affirmed. Conviction of A-3, A-4 and A-5 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was set aside. In respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A the conviction in respect of A-1 to A-5 and A-7 was confirmed. Appellant is A-7.

4. Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows :

The marriage between A-1 and Syed Ali Fathima (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) took place on 22.4.2001. A-2 is the brother of A-1. A-3 and A-4 are the sisters of A-1 and A-5 is the mother and A-6 is the father of A-1. A-7 is the aunt of A-1. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. At the time of marriage, PW-1 paid Rs.5,000/- and three sovereigns of gold jewels and after a period of two months, A-1 went over to Mumbai seeking for a job. All the other accused ill treated the deceased stating that the dowry demand was not met. Prior to the occurrence, A-1 came from Mumbai. PW-1 was summoned. At that time, there was a demand from A-1, A-2 and A-7, the appellant that 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards “Seervarisal” for Ramzan must be paid immediately. A-7, the appellant, who was present at that time informed PW-1 that she can pay the said demand within a period of two months.

PW-2 is closely related to PW-1. On 6.3.2000 he came to Pallapatti and went to the house of PW-1. PW-2 was informed by PW-1 that there was a dowry demand from the side of the accused. A marriage was scheduled to take place in the house of a neighbour which is next to the house of A-1 and hence on 8.3.2002, PW-2 came there between 11.00 a.m. and 12 noon. He was chatting with the said neighbour. Since PW-2 knew that there was a dowry demand, he decided to meet the deceased in her house for that purpose. When he was just getting down through the stair case, he was able to see the house of the deceased Fathima. A window was open through which he was able to see within 10 feet. At that time, A-1 and A-2 strangulated the deceased Fathima with a rope and A-3 and A-4 caught hold of both the arms. On seeing this, PW-2 was shocked. When he was witnessing the occurrence, A-2 saw PW-2. Immediately, PW-2 went over to the place of PW-1. But he could not meet anybody and he went over to his native place, Salem and returned on 9.3.2002.

When PW-1 went to the house of the accused, the wife of A-2 locked from inside and informed that the deceased Fathima was upstairs. When PW-1 went upstairs, she found only the dead body of her daughter and PW-1 was able to see a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. PW-1 immediately came back and informed the relatives and proceeded to the Police Station. PW-13 the Sub Inspector of Police was on duty on the day of occurrence. PW-1 gave a complaint at about 1700 hrs which is marked as Ex.P-1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 49/2002 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). Ex.P-11, the FIR was dispatched to the Court. On receipt of the copy of the FIR, PW-14 the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made inspection and prepared Ex.P-2 the observation Mahazar and Ex.P-12 the rough sketch. He al