Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.45/96 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode are the appellants. Though both of them were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they were found guilty only under Section 498A read with S.34 of I.P.C. and were acquitted of the offence under S.304B of I.P.C. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The same is under challenge through this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that both the first appellant, Aravindan, and Reetha were in love. They decided to join in matrimony. Both went to the office of P.W.7 the Sub Registrar of the area and executed Ext.P2 agreement dated 1.12.92 In the presence of P.W.1 a close relative of Reetha and P.W.2 her mother, resolving to live as husband wife. They cohabited as such in the house of the first accused/first appellant. But the life of Reetha was not pleasant there. There was demand for dowry particularly gold ornaments worth 25 sovereigns. She had to face many harassments and cruel behaviour from both the appellate, while living in their house. She complained of the same to P.W.1 who was also one of the attestors to Ext.P2 agreement. The father of Reetha is no more. P.W.2 was not capable of meeting the demands of the accused. She went to the house of the appellants. But P.W.2 was not received with the warmth extended to a mother in law. She, hence returned. The relationship later on went into rough weather. The first appellant took Reetha and left in the house of P.W.2 There was a son born to Reetha by the first appellant. Aravindan. The child was with Reetha. She lived for one month in her house. Though, she repeatedly complained to P.W.1, he could not meet the appellants and resolve the dispute, as he was unable to meet the demand of dowry. Harassment were meted out to Reetha by the appellants, saying that she had no beauty and also did not possess the stature suitable for the first appellant, comparing her with the wife of the brother of the first appellant, who by then got married and brought a beautiful girl to their house. So Reetha decided to commit suicide, after leaving a letter to her mother. She poured kerosene oil and accomplished her desire, despite the treatment in the hospital for the burn injuries she suffered.

3. P.W.1 gave Ext.P1 F.I, Statement to P.W. 83 the Head Constable, who registered Ext.P1(a) F.I.R. P.W.4 is also another relative, who speaks of cruelty on Reetha, by the appellants, P.W.10, Tahsildar held Ext.P4 inquest. P.W.6, the doctor, conducted post mortem and issued Ext.P6, post mortem certificate. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the Investigating officers of the case. Later, they have filed a final report in the case.

4. The evidence consists of P.W.1 to P.W.13 and Exts.P1 to P10. M.Os. 1 to 7 were also identified. No defence evidence was adduced, except marking of Ext.D1, a contradiction of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as stated above, under S.498A.

5. The first contention of the learned counsel, Mr. S. Rajiv appearing for the appellants is that Ext.P2 being only a contract, there is no valid marriage between the deceased Reetha and the first appellant, Aravindan. Hence S.498A I.P.C. will not be attracted. The counsel relied on Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh [1994 S.C.C.(Crl) 259) to emphasis that mere living as husband and wife, without a valid marriage, as per the custom prevalent in the area, would not confer the status of husband and wife. This case came up for the decision of the Supreme Court under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A suit was filed by Surjit Kaur, for getting the property of Gulaba Singh, on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of late Gulaba Singh