The main legal point established in the judgment is that to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide, or that the harassment was to compel her to fulfil an illegal demand for dowry.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. The appellant, who is the first accused in S.C. No. 209 of 2001 of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC as per the judgment dated 16.11.2006.

2. The appellant/first accused was prosecuted along with his mother, the second accused, for the offence punishable under Section 304B r/w Section 34 IPC on the allegation that after the marriage of the first accused with the daughter of PW-8 on 21.05.1995 and while the daughter of PW-8 was residing in the matrimonial house along with accused persons, they subjected her to physical and mental cruelty demanding more dowry and unable to bear the cruelty, the daughter of PW-8 poured kerosene over her body and set fire to herself at 4.15 p.m. on 05.12.1998 and thereafter, while undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, she succumbed to her injuries at 6.50 a.m. on 8.12.1998 and the accused are thereby alleged to have committed the offence as aforesaid

3. Exhibit P1(a) FIR was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 08.12.1998 on the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW-1, who is the brother of the father of the deceased. After completing the investigation, final report was filed by PW-18, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal and after committal, the case was taken on file as S.C. No. 209 of 2001.

4. The trial of the case was conducted before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram and from the side of the prosecution PWs. 1 to 18 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked. From the side of the accused, DW-1 was examined and Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2006, convicted the first accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

6. Heard Sri. K.P. Majeed appearing for the appellant and Sri. Prasanth M.P. the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The point that requires consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC is legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence in this case clearly proves that it is an accidental death which occurred while the deceased was in the kitchen and when her sari caught fire from the kerosene stove, while she was boiling milk for her child and that there is no evidence in this case to indicate the presence of kerosene in her body and the court below even after arriving at a finding that there is no evidence of cruelty against the deceased from the side of accused persons soon before her death so as to attract the offence under Section 304B IPC, recorded a finding that the appellant/first accused committed the offence under Section 498A IPC.

9. It is also argued that the said finding of the court below was without framing a charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC and without satisfactory evidence to arrive at a finding that the appellant/first accused subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined in the explanation to Section 498A IPC. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 8 to 12 will clearly show that the appellant/first accused used to manhandle the deceased demanding money for the construction of the house, and since the prosecution has proved that the appellant/first accused subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty, there is nothing wrong in convicting him for the offence under Section 498A IPC, even though he was charged and acquitted un