The judgment establishes the principle that persistent demand for dowry and ill-treatment leading to suicide can lead to conviction under IPC Section 498-A and Section 304-B.

JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. The District Sessions Judge, Manila Court, Cuddalore District, by judgment dated 02.02.2013 passed in S.C. No. 253 of 2011, has convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and directed the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/A1 to run concurrently and acquitted the second accused Santha, the mother of the appellant/A1 of the offences put forth against her under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC and challenging the conviction and sentenced imposed on him, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A1.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, according to the prosecution, the first accused and the deceased Nithya got married three years prior to the occurrence and at the time of marriage, the deceased parents had presented 20 sovereigns of jewels and also other household articles as dowry and also promised to purchase a motorcycle for the appellant/A1 6 months after the marriage and thereafter, the appellant and the deceased were living separately, however, the appellant used to insist the deceased to apprise her parents to purchase the motorcycle as promised by them and on that score, ill-treated and torture her persistently and the deceased in turn had been requesting her parents to purchase the motorcycle as demanded by the appellant/A1 and in continuation of his persistent demands, it is put forth that on 27.04.2011 when the deceased brother Aananthan (PW 3) had been to visit the deceased, the appellant and his mother had directed him to purchase the motorcycle and further it is also stated that on 28.04.2011 at 9.00 a.m. the deceased contacted her father Mani (PW 1) over phone and informed him that the accused had been ill-treating and torturing her with reference to purchase of the motorcycle and accordingly, the prosecution has put forth the case that unable to bear the torture and ill-treatment caused to her, the deceased on 28.04.2011 at about 9 p.m. committed suicide by hanging from a fan and thereby died and thus it is alleged that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC.

3. To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 14 were examined and Exs. P1 to P12 were marked. MOs 1 to 3 were also marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. qua the incriminating evidence tendered against them by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the offences put forth against them and not ill-treated and tortured the deceased with reference to the purchase of motorcycle and according to them, the deceased was depressed by the fact that her husband viz. Saravanan the appellant/A1 had not obtained any employment in the Government and also unable to bear the fact that she and her husband viz., the appellant/A1 were unable to pay the premium amount towards the LIC coverage of their child and consequently, committed suicide and it is also put forth that the appellant/A1 is possessed of a motorcycle and therefore, there is no question of the accused demanding the purchase of motorcycle from the deceased or her parents and therefore, it is stated that the case had been falsely foisted against them. In support of the defence version, no oral evidence has been adduced. Exhibits D1 to 4 has been marked. No Mo has been marked.

4. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant/A 1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B as afore-stated and acquitted his mother viz., A2 of the offences put forth against her. Challenging the same, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant/