JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide Judgment dated 09.04.2019 made in S.C.No.176 of 2015 on the file of the learned Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2. The respondent-police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.4778 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., (Hanging). After enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer and based on his report, the offence was altered to Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC, on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the deceased. After completing the investigation, the respondent-police laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, for the offences under Section 489(A) and 306 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after taking the charge sheet on file in PRC.No.35 of 2012, has come to the conclusion that the case is triable by the Court of Session and committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, since the offence is against the women, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.176 of 2015 and made over to the Special Court.

3. After framing charges, during trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of prosecution as many as ten witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW10, ten documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P10. Besides two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. After completing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances were culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before to the appellant/accused by questioning under Section 363 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

4. After completion of the trial, upon hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to further undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone was ordered to be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant herein has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. Mr.R.Singgaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that originally the complaint was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, Subsequently, after enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the police altered the offences of the case under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC. Neither in the First Information Report nor in the statement made before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the witnesses have spoken about the demand of dowry said to have been made by the appellant. Even the Revenue Divisional Officer gave his opinion in his report that there was no dowry demand and the deceased committed suicide due to family dispute. There is nothing to show that the appellant has induced the deceased to commit the suicide. When there is no dowry demand the question of abetement by inducement under Section 306 of IPC would not attracted. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even in the complaint given by the defacto complainant based on which the First Information Report was registered, he has not stated anything about the demand of dowry or inducement. During the enquiry before the Police officer, none of the witnesses have spoken about the demand of dowry or abetment or inducement. It is settled proposition of law that for death by suicide there must be some inducement or abetment or instigation which would drive the deceased to commit suicide.