Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Mani - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2010
Decided On : 23-10-2018
R. John Sathyan, Adv., V. Sarathadevi, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498 and 304 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Evidence Act - Section 113B – Dowry Demand - Death - Appellants herein are accused Nos-1 and 3 on file of learned sessions judge mahila court salem and they stand convicted for offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and also convicted for offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each - Challenging said conviction and sentence appellants 1 and 3 have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court - Pending trial A2 who is mother of A1 had died and hence charges levelled against her are abated – Held, In instant case there is no such evidence available on record to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or in connection with dowry demand soon before death and hence finding given by trial Court that prosecution had proved charge is not sustainable warranting interference by this Court at this appellate stage for want of evidence on this score as discussed - As noted earlier prosecution has not let in any positive evidence in support of charge and only vague and unqualified allegation was made by PW -3 against A2 who is no longer alive and died during pendency of trial and hence this Court is of considered view that there is no iota of evidence against A1 and A3 legally acceptable evidence for charge and in this view of matter conviction and sentence passed by trial Court for offences against A1 and A3 are not sustainable and same are liable to be set aside - Appeal is allowed.
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
1. The appellants herein are accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.187 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, and they stand convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and also convicted for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants 1 and 3 have preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court. Pending trial, A.2, who is the mother of A.1, had died and hence, charges levelled against her are abated.
2. The respondent police has filed final report against A.1 and A.3/appellants herein and A.2, who is the mother of A.1 alleging that A.1-Mani married the deceased Periyammal @ Kavitha five years prior to 23.06.2007 and at the time of marriage, A.1/husband of the deceased and A.2/mother-in-law of the deceased and A.3/sister-in-law of the deceased have demanded and accepted dowry of half sovereign of gold Stud and Nose ring and anklet from the parents of the deceased Kavitha and accused Nos.1 to 3 have also demanded furthermore dowry from the deceased and the first accused caused hurt to the deceased by demanding to bring dowry from her parents' house and 15 days prior to 22.06.2007, when the deceased Kavitha was in her mother's house, the first accused, after a small fight with his wife/the deceased, snatched the Thali thread of the deceased and in view of the demand of dowry and cruelty committed by all the three accused, Kavitha has committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of the first accused and hence, final report has been filed for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) IPC.
3. To buttress the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and produced M.O.1. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
4. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and also taking note of the fact that A.2, who is the mother of A.1, died pending trial, the trial Court has declared the proceedings against A.2/mother-in-law of the deceased as abated and held that the charge against A.1 and A.3 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved in the manner known to law and hence, acquitted them from the said charge. However, convicted A.1 and A.3 under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC and hence, the appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A.1 and A.3 would submit that except the unqualified allegation of P.W.3 as against A.2/mother-in-law of the deceased, there is no evidence available in support of the charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequent Section 304(B) IPC. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 does not substantiate the charge under Section 498(A) IPC and hence, the learned counsel seeks for acquittal of the appellants/A.1 and A.3 from the said charges.
6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court.
7. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the conviction passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC is sustainable in law? and
(ii) Whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC is excessive?
8. After hearing the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and after perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 16 and documentary evidence of Exs.P.1 to 13 and taking note of the grounds of appeal, it appears that the maternal uncle of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, while the parents of the d
