IMPORTANT POINT
A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. These two appeals are interlinked and have their matrix on a judgment of the Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The conviction was imposed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, and appeal was preferred by the appellants questioning conviction and the sentence imposed. Originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 498A and 304 B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Appellant-Rajendran, was married to Shanthi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). The other appellants are the parents of Rajendran. On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got married to appellant-Rajendran. Since there was torture at the hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi committed suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 A.M. by setting fire on herself after pouring kerosene.

On the complaint of Ganesan (PW-1), the father of the deceased, a case was registered in Crime No. 99 of 1991 for suspicious death by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.9). After examination of witnesses and recovery of material objects, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (PW-11) filed a charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.3.1992 for the offences under Section 498(A) and 304(B) IPC.

During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined, Exs. P1 to P16 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked.

The trial court on completion of trial, concluded that all the appellants were guilty of offence under Section 498 A IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Same was challenged before the High Court.

The appellants in the appeal before the High Court submitted that in the absence of any dying declaration or suicide note or any evidence relating to dowry torture the trial court ought not to have convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted that since the appellants were acquitted of charge punishable under Section 304B IPC, consequentially the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants in respect of other offence. The High Court did not accept this plea. It held that on going through the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 it was clear that there was no offence relating to dowry torture but there are materials to show that deceased was being tortured by the appellants.

The High Court also referred to the evidence of independent witness Dhanam (PW 3) who was a neighbour. She had specifically stated about the ill-treatment by the appellants. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants were rightly convicted. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

4. One of the reasons for ill-treatment to the deceased was that the deceased gave birth to a female child, which was considered to be inauspicious and after the birth of the said female child, the Rajendran’s brother’s wife died and the appellants thought that the birth of the said female child was the reason for various debacles in the family and consequently, she was tortured by the appellants.

5. It is also clearly stated by P.W.1 that on 28.2.1991, PW-1 went to the house of the appellants to take both the first appellant-Rajendran and the deceased to attend a function at their ‘Kula Theivam’ temple. But the appellants allowed only the deceased to go along with PW-1 to attend the function. Admittedly, Rajendran did not accompany the deceased to the function.

6. On 7.3.1991 at about 10.30 A.M., P