Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Mallika - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 836 of 2013
Decided On : 03-06-2020
For the Appellant:V. Rajmohan, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Ravichandran (Crl.side), Government Advocate.
The main legal point established is that a demand for money unrelated to the marriage does not constitute dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Appeal - IPC 498-A, 304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court acquitted the appellant/A2 of the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC based on lack of evidence of dowry demand and ill-treatment.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Jothi was married to A1 Ramesh. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded Rs.50,000 for a land transaction, leading to ill-treatment and suicide by the deceased. The trial court acquitted A1 but convicted appellant/A2 under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for money was not a dowry demand as it was not related to the marriage. The court also questioned the reliability of the evidence presented, especially the testimony of PW6 Chinnasamy. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish dowry demand and ill-treatment by the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had demanded dowry and ill-treated the deceased, leading to her suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the demand for money was not related to the marriage and did not constitute dowry demand. The court also highlighted the lack of reliable evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant/A2 of the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, citing lack of evidence of dowry demand and ill-treatment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 30.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.109 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.)
1. The appellant (A2) and her son Ramesh (A1) were charge sheeted by the respondent police under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, by judgement dated 30.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.109 of 2011 acquitted A1 Ramesh of the offences put forth against him under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC, however, proceeded to convict the appellant/A2 under Section 304-B and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant / A2 are ordered to run concurrently. Impugning the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, according to the prosecution case, A1 Ramesh married the deceased Jothi on 29.04.2007 and A2 is the mother of A1 and they were residing jointly at Karamur Village and at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased had put 6 sovereigns of gold to their daughter and also gave Rs.12,000/- for the purchase of two wheeler and watch during the marriage and six months prior to 06.12.2008, the accused had sold 6 sovereigns of gold belonging to the deceased Jothi for purchasing a land for themselves and on several occasions, the accused have harassed the deceased by demanding Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of paying the balance amount for the abovesaid purchase of the land and three months prior to 06.12.2008, the accused picked up fight with the deceased Jothi and unable to bear the torture and ill-treatment inflicted upon her by the accused, it is put forth that Jothi committed suicide by jumping into the Well belonging to Pachaiappan and died due to drowning and thus, it is stated that the accused 1 and 2 had committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The criminal law had set in motion based on the complaint lodged by PW1, the Revenue Assistant and according to PW1, while he was on duty on 09.12.2008, his Village Assistant Santhamurthy apprised him that a female dead body was found in the land of Pachaiyappan and on going there, they noticed one female dead body in the Well and identified the same as Jothi, wife of Ramesh (A1) and accordingly, it is stated that he had lodged the complaint to the police marked as Ex.P1 and PW10 Rajendran, Sub-Inspector of Police, based on the complaint lodged by PW1, registered the FIR marked as Ex.P6 and forwarded the same to the RDO vide the requisition letter marked as Ex.P7 and other higher officials for investigation. PW11 Sambasivam RDO based on that FIR visited the spot on 09.12.2008 and conducted the enquiry over the dead body and recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased and other villagers belonging to that area and filed the inquest report marked as Ex.P8 and further, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report holding that the deceased would have died due to dowry demand and accordingly, directed the police to conduct further investigation. The RDO report has been marked as Ex.P9. Following the same, PW12 Mani, DSP visited the spot and prepared the observation mahazer and rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses marked as Exs.P2 and P10 and examined the various witnesses including the complainant, the parents of the deceased and her relatives and it is found that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the post mortem was conducted by PW8 doctor Hariharan and the Post mortem report issued by him has been marked as Ex.P3 and as per
