Back
2003 (3) Crimes
Madras High Court
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Mahendran and Anr. - Appellants
versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1995
Decided on 15-11-2002
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants :Mr. K. Mohan Ram, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. O. Srinath, Govt. Advocate.
Important Point
Expression “soon before her death” in section 304-B, IPC reflects that there should be a perceptile nexus between her death on dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her and proximate and live link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and conse-quential death is required to be proved.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B - Dowry death - Deceased married to appellant accused No. 1 in 1984 died on 25-9-1988 by committing suicide by jumping into a well with her 9 months old baby - Appeal against conviction - Torture with reference to demand of dowry soon before death - Expression “soon before” was a relative term required to be considered under specific circums-tances of each case - There should be a perceptible nexus between her death on dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her - Phrase is an elastic expression - Evidence of two brothers of deceased estab-lished that there was a demand of dowry and unable to bear torture, deceased used to come to parental home and collect money to satisfy demand - It established that torture as well as demand of dowry had continued till her death - Prose-cution established that deceased died in abnormal circumstances by suicide and before her death she was subjected to harassment by accused husband demanding dowry - Pre-sumption u/s. 113-B, Evidence Act arose and offence of dowry death stood proved against husband - Sentence, however reduced from 10 years to 7 years imprisonment. (Paras 19 to 22, 28, 29 and 46)
(ii) Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Definition of dowry - Even if demand is long after the marriage, same could constitute dowry if other requirements were satisfied. (Para 31)
Result : Appeal allowed partly.
JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - Mahendran, the son and Endammal, the mother, were convicted for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and each sen-tenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. Challenging the same, they have filed this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
“(a) The deceased Velumani got married to the first appellant Mahendran in the year 1984. Dr. Natarajan, P.W.1 is her brother working as a pro-fessor in a Government College. At the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and other articles were provided as Seervarisai to her. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born.
(b) The deceased Velumani was staying with her husband, the first appellant as well as with her mother-in-law, the second appellant and father-in -law. Not satisfied with the dowry already provided, the appellants harassed the deceased asking her to get some more jewel and also to get a Moped from her parents. At the request of the deceased, P.W. 1 and his parents gave some more jewels and also money for purchase of Moped.
(c) Even then, the torture conti-nued demanding more money and jewels. Unable to bear the torture, the deceased Velumani lodged a police complaint against her hus-band and her mother-in-law, the appellants on 3.9.1985 to P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police at Peelamedu Police Station. The complaint is Ex. P7. ultimately, both the par-ties agreed to settle the matter and made an endorse-ment of compromise in
Ex. P8.
(d) Thereafter, they lived together. Even then, the harassment continued. About this harassment, the decea-sed used to complain to P.W.1 and P.W.4 Ranga-nathan, her brothers. Even when she was pregnant, she was driven out from the matrimonial home asking for more jewels. The deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and after birth of the child, the accused demanded jewels for the child as well as cash. Due to these happening, P.W.1’s mother was hospita-lised and ultimately, she died on 17.8.1988. Even after this incident, the harassment at the hands of the appellants continued.
(e) On 25.9.1988 early morning, the deceased Velumani along with her 9 months old child went to the nearby well and jumped into it for committing suicide. On hearing the sound, P.W.2 Ramachandran who is residing nearby got into the well and was able to save only the child, but Velumani got drowned herself and died. The messages were sent to P.W.1 and P.W.4, the brothers of Velumani.
(f) P.W.1 and others came to the house of the accused and on seeing the dead body of the deceased, went and gave the complaint Ex. P1 to P.W. 19, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The complaint was originally registered for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. First appellant also gave complaint and the same was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. Then, P.W. 18, the Executive Magistrate held the inquest and submitted his report Ex. P.11. P.W. 19 D.S.P. took up further investigation.
(g) In the meantime, D.W.1, the Sub Collector also conducted a separate enquiry and submitted his report stating that the death was due to dowry torture. Continuing the investigation, P.W. 19 D.S.P. examined other witnesses. P.W. 20 another D.S.P. took up further investigation and filed the charge sheet against both the accused under Section 5 of the Dowry prohibition Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C.”
3. The Sessions Court on considering the materials available on record, framed the charges for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.
4. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined, Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of defence, D.W. 1 was examined and Exs. X1 to X3 were marked.
5. Originally, the trial court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the first informant P.W1 Dr. Natarajan filed a revision before this Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court on considering the mate
