(Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed against the judgment passed by the Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai, in S.C. No.377 of 2001 dated 6.4.2004 as stated therein.)

R. Balasubramanian, J.

Five persons were tried in S.C. No.377/01 on the file of the Court of Mahalir Neethi Mandram at Chennai under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found A-1 to A-3 alone guilty of the above referred to offences and, accordingly, sentenced A-1 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and A-2 and A-3 each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the same offence. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to the above, A-1 to A-3 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/= each as compensation to P.W.1 and a sum of Rs.50,000/= each as compensation to the minor child, Piyush Dalmia. The compensation amount, to be paid to the minor, was directed to be invested in a nationalised bank till the minor attains majority. A-1 to A-3 are therefore challenging their conviction before this Court in this appeal. Challenging the acquittal of A-5, P.W.1 in that sessions case is before this Court in the accompanying revision. The State had not challenged the acquittal of A-4 and A-5 in the judgment under challenge. Heard Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and for the contesting respondent in the revision against acquittal; Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the cases and Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

2. The prosecution case is that between 22.1.99 and 30.1.01, the accused subjected Archana, since deceased, to cruelty; made demand for dowry and unable to bear the torture, Archana committed suicide and, therefore, punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 28 besides marking Exs.P-1 to P-62 and M.O.s 1 to 10. The defence examined one witness on their side as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D-1. C.W.1 was examined as a court witness through whom Exs.C-1 to C-3 came to be marked.

3. A-1, A-4 and A-5 are the sons and daughter of A-2 and A-3 (A-2 and A-3 are the father and mother of A-1). A-1 is the husband of Archana, who is the daughter of P.W.1. Archana is the deceased in this case. P.W.1, as already stated, is the father of the deceased, while P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and wife of P.W.3. In other words, P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and the brother of the deceased. We will extract hereunder in extenso as to what P.W.1 spoke in court on material aspects:-

"3.1. I have two sons and one daughter; P.W.3 is the eldest of the three and he is my son; my second son is Rakesh Kumar and Archana is my daughter. all my children are married; Archana was given in marriage to A-1; A-2 is the father of A-1, A-4 and A-5; A-3 is the wife of A-2; all the accused were living in West Mambalam as a joint family; I had taken four LIC policies in the name of my daughter to the total value of Rs.5 lakhs; I have purchased Indra Vikas certificate in the name of my daughter, the value of which is Rs.2 lakhs; I am the nominee under all the LIC policies and the maturity value of all the LIC policies is Rs.9 lakhs; the proposal for my daughter's marriage was given on 27.8.98 by P.W.4; it is she, who took the lead for the marriage; during the marriage negotiations, A-2 and A-3 wanted properties to the value of Rs.9 lakhs, besides a cash of Rs.1 lakh as dowry; the properties they demanded include gold jewellery, silver jewellery and silver articles, gold chain, furniture, electronic goods, electrical goods and diamond ring; the jewels would constitute 85 to 90 sovereigns; Rs.75,000/= would be the value of t