The judgment establishes the application of Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in cases of dowry harassment and the importance of relying on credible evidence to establish the cruelty inflicted upon the victim.

JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. The appellant/Accused No. 1 has been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and the period of sentences imposed on the appellant/accused No. 1 had been ordered to run concurrently and he had been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 306 IPC. His mother Krishnaveni(A2), who had been tried along with the appellant, been acquitted of all the charges put forth against her by the Sessions Court under Section 304-B, 306 & 498-A IPC.) Impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused No. 1.

2. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the accused No. 1 was married to the deceased Maheswari on 26.02.2007 and after the marriage, A1 and his mother A2 along with the deceased Maheshwari resided at No. 4/1277, Kambar Street, Anna Nagar, Nathambedu, Thiruninravur and both A1 & A2 had subjected the deceased Maheswari on or before 01.02.2009 to cruelty, harassed her and ill-treated her physically and mentally with a view to coerce her in obtaining more dowry amount from her parents and the wilful cruelty acts committed by A1 & A2 were of such a nature, the same drove the deceased Maheswari to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze after pouring kerosene on her body and thereby, A1 & A2 had voluntarily abetted the deceased Maheswari to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty in the abovesaid manner and in pursuance of the said abetment caused by A1 & A2, the deceased Maheshwari committed suicide on 01.02.2009 prior to 4.15 P.M. in the abovesaid house and died in the hospital on the same date at about 21.15 hours and thus A1 & A2 have caused the dowry death of the deceased. As she had been subjected to cruelty in connection with the illegal demand of dowry by the accused and the accused had abetted commission of her suicide, in all, according to the prosecution, both A1 & A2 had committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC.

3. The abovesaid case was initially taken on file in PRC No. 17 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruvallur and after furnishing the copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution to sustain the charges levelled against the accused as per law and noting that the charges levelled against the accused should be tried exclusively by the Court of Sessions, it is found that the Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruvallur for trial and resultantly, the case had been made over to the first Additional Sessions Court, Tiruvallur. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record by the prosecution and after hearing the submissions put forth by the prosecution and the accused with reference to the charge sheet levelled against them, the Sessions Court finding a prima facie case that the accused had committed the offences levelled against them, framed charges against both the accused under Sections 498-A, 306 & 304-B IPC.

4. The criminal law had been set in motion in the abovesaid matter based on the complaint lodged by PW1 Raja Bathar, the father of the deceased Maheshwari marked as Ex. P1 and PW8, Inspector of Police, Tiruninravur Police Station, on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW1, registered the case in Crime No. 52 of 2009 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. and the registered FIR has been marked as Ex. P5. The file was forwarded to the higher officials for necessary action as per law and it is noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of FIR (Ex. P5), on 02.02.2009 conducted the inquest on the dead body of Maheswari in the presence of Panchayatars and examined the Panchayatars, the deceased father and the accused and prepared the inquest report marked as Ex. P8 as well a