IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and dowry offences – To attract Section 498-A of IPC, there need not be demand of dowry.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Suicide for sure, whether on volition or driven to it by the husband and in-laws, was the question posed before the trial court. The husband and the in-laws were the accused charged of continuous torture and harassment on demands of dowry. The trial court acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) finding that there is no evidence on the aspect of demand of dowry and that the letter produced, alleged to be a demand made by the father-in-law, A2, was not proved. However, relying on the oral testimony of PW2 to PW5 and the letters said to have been written by the deceased to her brother, PW3, and her father, torture was found to have been meted out to the deceased by the accused for non-fulfilment of unlawful demands. The finding was despite holding that there were only general and omnibus statements made without any specific or definite instances or the particular day or time having been pointed out. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced the accused to three years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of three months RI under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC, as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the DP Act), with no separate sentence passed under the DP Act.

3. At the outset, we notice that the conviction under the DP Act is inconsistent with the finding of the trial court that there is no demand of dowry established. It is also bewildering that the trial court entered a conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC on general and omnibus allegations raised, without specific substantiation. The High Court having considered the evidence affirmed the conviction of the accused but modified the sentence to six months of RI for A1 and one month and 15 days respectively for A2 and A3; both were also released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on execution of a bond for the fine amount, their conduct kept under supervision of the Probation Officer for three months.

4. We have heard Sri Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant who alone has chosen to file the appeal and Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned State Counsel.

5. The High Court rightly found that in the totality of the circumstances, the conviction under Section 4 of the DP Act cannot be sustained. The High Court also found that though there were no specific or definite instances pointed out, which alone would bring the case under the mischief of Section 498-A of the IPC, still convicted the accused on the ground of “certain particulars regarding the cruelty meted out to her having come out in the evidence”. We have thus to examine the evidence insofar as the charge alleged of torture and harassment, which again we have to emphasize is not relating to any demand made of dowry, which was found to be non-existent by the trial court, thus acquitting the accused under Section 304-B of the IPC.

6. That the death occurred by suicide is clear from the evidence of the Doctor, PW11 and PW9, a neighbour. PW9 deposed that she was holding the child of the deceased while standing near her when suddenly she consumed something from a bottle. PW9 snatched away the bottle, when the liquid splashed on her, which she realized was a pesticide. PW9 swooned on the spot and only later, she came to know that her neighbour had died. PW11 spoke of the frothy discharge from the mouth and nose and cyanosis of the nails and lips found in the postmortem, stated to be clear symptoms of poisoning. The death was by suicide, whether impelled by the conduct of the husband or not is the question posed.

7. For finding the allegation under Section 498-A, the trial court relied on the evidence of PW2 to PW5 and the letters produced as Exts. 6 & 7 which were alleged to have been written by the deceased to her father and brother. Here, we have to notice that PW2 to PW5 spoke about demands of dowry,