The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving allegations of demand for dowry, cruelty, and abetment of suicide.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is Accused No.1 in S.C.No.312 of 2012, on the file of the Sessions Court cum Mahila Court, Madurai, dated 05.11.2014. The appellant / Accused No.1 was tried along with Accused Nos.2 to 4. Accused No.2 is the mother of the appellant. Accused No.3 is the sister of the second accused. Accused No.4 is the grandmother of the appellant. In the trial Court, they were charged for the offences under Sections 498 A and 306 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court had acquitted Accused Nos. 2 to 4 from all charges framed against them and convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498 A and 306 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- indefault to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against which, the present Appeal has been filed.

2. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-

2.(1). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased had married on 11.09.2008. During their marriage, 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- was insisted to be given as seethana articles. But, P.W.1 / father of the deceased had given five sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- as seethana articles to their marriage. After their marriage, both of them were living in a separate home. The mother of the appellant had compelled them to live in joint family with her. The third and fourth accused also compelled them to live in joint family. The appellant on their compulsion insisted his wife viz., Selvarani to live in only joint family. But, his wife resisted and she was physically assaulted and subjected to cruelty. Further, the demand for balance five sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry persisted by the accused. Due to which, unable to bear the same, on 12.11.2008, the deceased Selvarani had lodged a complaint with All Women Police Station, Thallakulam and P.W.16-Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the Thallakulam Police Station, had summoned all the accused and there, it was agreed that within ten days, the appellant would find out a separate place and take back his wife Selvarani. Since Selvarani was pregnant at that time, she was asked to stay with her parents during that time. The appellant had not called the deceased and even after twenty days, the appellant had not taken back his wife and hence, on 25.11.2008, there was a panchayat and the accused including the appellant reiterated the demand of five sovereigns of gold jewels, failing which, the appellant uncle's daughter was ready to marry him with ten sovereigns of gold. On 30.11.2008, the deceased Selvarani at about 07.30 a.m. called the appellant from a PCO / STD Booth. The deceased returned back home, crying and thereafter, she committed suicide by using her shawl. Hence, a case came to be registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and the offences were altered into Sections 304 (b) and 306 I.P.C. and charge sheet came to be filed.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 19 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.19 and 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. one material object was marked as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined nor any document was marked.

4. When the appellant was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.

5. The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging the legality of the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Sub