The main legal point established in the given judgment is the interpretation of the necessary ingredients to punish the accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and the distinction between the offences under Section 304 (B) @ 306 IPC and Section 498A IPC, as emphasized by the court to reach its decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, (Magaliar Neethimandaram) Chennai-104 in S.C.No.73 of 2013 dated 17.07.2014 by convicting the appellants to undergo imprisonment for three years, and imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each appellants, for alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC.)

1. On 27.04.2008, on receipt of the memo from KMC Hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to P2 Otteri Police Station went to KMC Hospital, Chennai, recorded the statement of one Sagana Devi, aged 20 years admitted, wife of Karthikeyan, admitted in the Burn Ward and registered case in Crime No.191 of 2008 for offence under Section 309 of IPC.

2. According to the statement of Sagana Devi leading to registration of the First Information Report, she and her husband along with 6 months old son Sakthivel presently residing at D.No.43, Ponniamman Koil Street, Purasaivakkam, Chennai. Their marriage took place 1 1/2 years ago. At the time of marriage, her parents gave 15 sovereign of jewels to her as strithana and 3 sovereign of jewels to her husband. The marriage expenses were met out by her family. After marriage, they were living with her mother-in-law at Sachithanantham Street. At that time, her mother-in-law used to demand fridge and washing machine from her parents and pick up quarrel. 15 days prior to the incident, they set up separate residence at Ponniamman Koil Street. On 27.04.2008, her husband came home with salary and told, out of his salary, Rs.3000/- to be given to his mother. The deceased Sagana Devi refused, since she has to meet out the house rent and brokerage. There was wordy quarrel between husband and wife in this connection. Due to the mental torture, she doused herself with kerosene and set fire. Her husband, hearing her scream, put out the fire and took her to KMC Hospital for treatment. After registration of the case, the Sub Inspector of Police gave a request to the Metropolitan Magistrate for recording her statement.

3. Accordingly, the Metropolitan Magistrate, after ensuring that she is in fit state of mind to give statement, recorded her statement. The deceased Sagana Devi succumbed to injury on the next day at 07.15 a.m. Receiving said information, charge was altered and alteration report was forwarded to the Court. RDO enquiry was arranged since the death was within 7 years of her marriage. After completion of investigation, final report filed. The Mahila Court, on committal, framed charges against A1 to A4, who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased Sagana Devi for the offence under (i) Sections 498A and (ii) 304((B) in alteration Section 306 IPC.

4. The prosecution to prove the charges, examined 14 witnesses, marked 20 exhibits and 2 material objects. In defence, 4 witnesses were examined and one exhibit was marked.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 304(B) of IPC in alteration Section 306 of IPC. Convicted the accused A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 498A and sentenced each of them to undergo three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo, three months SI.

6. Plea of the appellants:-

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court having found no material to convict the accused under Section 304(B) @ 306 IPC ought to have acquitted them for offence under Section 498A of IPC since the ingredient and necessary material for proof of these two offences are one and the same. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also contended that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are closely related to the deceased by blood. They are interested witnesses and their allegation regarding demand of dowry on the earlier occasion are highly doubtful, in the absence of any documentary or corroboratory evidence. The evidence of PW-4 (Kousalya), who is the owner