Impugned criminal case does not attract provisions of section 304B I.P.C.

The petitioner had been convicted for offence under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and under Section 304-B IPC, sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.900/-, in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment (sentences to run concurrently) by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in S.C. No.36/2000, against which he preferred appeal in C.A. No.4 of 2000 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur, who confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

2.Since two courts have already gone into the facts and evidences and given concurrent findings, finding the accused guilty, it may not be necessary for me to advert to the facts of the case in detail, as this is only a revision, suffice to state that originally the police had filed the charge sheet against two persons, namely the petitioner herein and his mother, as A-1 and A-2 respectively, for the above said offences. The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted both the accused for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. But in the appeal, A-2 was acquitted as there was no evidence against her.

3.The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:-

"a)P.W.1 gave his daughter in marriage to the petitioner, on 27.08.1998, which is not disputed by the accused. The couple lived happily only for a few months. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold jewels were agreed to be paid by the parents of the bride but only 10 sovereigns have been given, undertaking to give the remaining 5 sovereigns later.

b)After the marriage, the deceased was living with her husband and in-laws at Nochikulam. On 25.11.1998, P.W.1 had been to the marriage of his brother's grand daughter at Ariyalur and from there he went to Nochikulam to pay a visit to his daughter. There, he found the deceased to be in a distressed mood and on questioning her, she told him that her husband had beaten her. He expressed his reservations on her absence in that marriage for which, she replied that she had no jewels. On repeated questioning, the deceased told him that her husband had taken away the jewels and was living a wayward life by selling them. So, P.W.1 asked her to come for a short stay in his house for which the deceased told him that she would come after 10 days.

c)But on 26.11.1998, the following day, at 5 p.m., P.W.1 heard the news that the deceased had hung herself and committed suicide. He rushed to Nochikuppam and saw his dead daughter and smelling fishy in his daughter's death, he went to Ariyalur police station at about 10 pm on the same day and gave Ex.P-1, report to P.W.9, Head constable, who recorded the same and registered it in crime number 603 of 1998 for offence under Section 304-B.

d)Since death had taken place within 7 years of the marriage, the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting the inquest and accordingly, he held the inquest. According to him, there was no demand of dowry or harassement, but only a case of suicide.

e)The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, where P.W.7 Doctor, conducted the autopsy and opined that the in view of the marks in front of the neck, the deceased would have died of asphyxia about 24 to 30 hours prior to the postmortem examination. P.W.6, Investigating Officer, after concluding the investigation, filed the final report."

4.The case of the accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, was one of denial. According to the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide, as P.W.1, her father, found fault with her for having not attended the marriage and abused her asking her not to face him in future. Angered by the same, she has committed suicide. However, both the courts did not accept this explanation, as it has been made only at the final stages.

5.Be that as it may, the c