Point of Law : When statute imposes imprisonment and fine, same shall be read in 'conjunctive' and not 'disjunctive'.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.1317/2003 on the file of the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, assailing conviction and sentence imposed against them as per judgment dated 12.03.2007. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. The prosecution case runs as under:

It is alleged by the prosecution that the 1st accused had married one Suja, the cousin sister of the defacto complainant, in accordance with the religious rites and customs prevalent in their community, on 6.2.1999. At the time of marriage, 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been given to Suja and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-was promised to be paid as dowry within 2 years from the date of marriage. Subsequent to the marriage, the above Suja as well as the 1st accused were lived together as husband and wife in Balakrishna Vilasom Veedu, Veliyannoor Muri, Ummannoor Village, which is the family house of the 1st accused as well as the 2nd accused, who is the mother of the 1st accused. It is alleged further that during the stay, the accused had subjected Suja to cruelty and harassed her demanding the promised dowry which had not been paid even after one year of the marriage. The 1st accused had demanded Suja to go to her house and bring dowry and the 2nd accused had asked her to commit suicide if she could not pay dowry. So the consistent nagging and demand for dowry had driven Suja to suicide, some time between 9.30 p.m on 13.03.2000 and 4 o' clock in the morning on the next day, by hanging on a fan hook at the bed room of the residential house of the accused, Balakrishnavilasom veedu bearig Door No.250 of Ward No.II of Ummannoor Panchayat. Thus the accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

4. On the above facts, Kottarakkara police registered crime No.186/2000 and on investigation charge was laid against the accused under Section 304(B), 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

5. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kollam and in turn made over to the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam and the said Court tried the case after framing charge.

6. During trial, the prosecution adduced evidence by examining PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P15. During cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions were marked on the side of the defence.

7. Though after questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, opportunity was given to adduce evidence, no defence evidence adduced.

8. On analysing the evidence after hearing both sides, the trial court found that accused 1 and 2 committed offences under Section 304(B) and 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304(B) r/w 34 of I.P.C and to undergo R.I for a period of 3 years under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court convicted the appellants without support of sufficient evidence and remote evidence given by PW2 and PW3 was given emphasis to find the commission of the above offences by the appellants. He also pointed out that Ext.P4 diary, alleged to be written by the deceased when forwarded to FSL, Ext.P12 report was given by the expert suggesting that there is probability to write the diary by the deceased.

10. Repelling this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently supported the conviction and sentence and he pressed for upholding the conviction and sentence, since the prosecution successfully established commission of offences under Section 304B and 306 of I.P.C.

11. In view of the rival arguments, it is necessary in the interest of justice to appreciate the evidence in this case.

12. PW1 examined in this case is the cousin brother of Suja. He deposed about the marriage betwee