The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as dowry harassment and abetment to commit suicide.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment delivered by the Learned Sessions Judge (Magalir Neethi Mandram), Erode, in S.C.No.51 of 2014 dated 12.03.2015.

Dhanabakkiyam, wife of the appellant died on 03/05/2013 in the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital after 5 days of treatment. The case of the prosecution is that, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband demanding dowry. He forced her to sell the land settled by her parents in her name and bring money. Further, her husband had illicit extra marital affair with one married lady by name Revathi, which caused mental torture to her. In addition, when she invited her husband to join her for the temple festival, he refused to go along with her. So, she was mentally depressed. Hence, after leaving a suicide note indicating her husband as the reason for her death, she consumed pesticide on 28/04/2013.

2. Two days later, on 30.04.2013, on the information given by the mother of Dhanabakkiyam that she suspect her daughter has taken the extreme decision to end her life, since she was having severe pain during her menstrual cycle a case was registered for attempt to commit suicide. On 04/05/2013, Dhanabakkiyam died without responding to the treatment. While in the course of investigation, a suicide note was found in the bedroom indicating the conduct of her husband as reason for her death. Therefore, Sivakumar, the appellant herein, who is the husband of the deceased Dhanabakkiyam was charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the oral evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-20 and appreciating documents marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26, held the prosecution through the handwriting experts had proved Ex.P-5 (suicide note) was written by the deceased. The testimony of the mother, father and sister-in-law of the deceased (P.W-1 to P.W-3) respectively proves that there was harassment by the accused demanding dowry, hence the accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C and 306 I.P.C. Also observed that there is no evidence to prove that the accused had illicit intimacy with Revathi.

4. The defence document Ex.D-1, is the letter of P.W-1 (the defacto complainant who is the mother of the deceased Dhanabakkiyam) dated 22/05/2013 addressed to DSP, Gopichettipalayam expressing her wish to withdraw her complaint, stating that she has come to know that the conduct of her son-in-law Sivakumar is not the cause for her daughter’s death and he has come forward to re- convey the piece of land which was settled to her daughter. This defence exhibit was not considered by the trial Court since, P.W-1, the signatory of the said letter through whom it was marked during the cross examination has deposed that she was called to DSP Office for investigation continuously for 15 days. At DSP Office, the accused handed over the jewels of Dhanabakkiyam to her. He also gave a letter that he will not claim any right in the property of Dhanabakkiyam. In the said circumstances she was asked to give the letter Ex D-1.

5. The Leaned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, P.W-1, the mother of the deceased Dhanabakkiyam, who set the law into motion by informing the police about her daughter’s attempt to commit suicide is not a reliable witness at all. She has turned turtle several times after the complaint Ex.P-1 giving clean chit to her son-in-law. She, after informing the Police that Dhanabakkiyam was well taken care by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. She was not conceived even after 1 ½ years of marriage and she used to suffer pain during her menstrual period, hence she suspect that fearing pain, her daughter has consumed poison. Later, few days after the complaint wrote letter Ex.D-1 addressing the DSP to drop the proceedings. Before the DRO, she and other witnesses in unison had stated that there was no dowry demand by the accused. But due to tutoring subsequently, before the tria