The judgment establishes that in cases of alleged dowry death, the prosecution must establish a proximate link between the cruelty or harassment and the consequential death. The absence of such a link may entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Mahila Judge, Trichy made in S.C.No.28 of 2016, dated 19.02.2019.)

R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant / accused No.1 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 19.02.2019, passed in S.C.No.28 of 2016, by the learned Mahila Judge, Trichy.

2. The appellant/A-1 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereunder:

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.)

3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) The deceased Rajalakshmi is the daughter of P.W.1 and sister of P.Ws.11 & 21. The deceased married A1 on 12.04.2012. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given 14 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels to the deceased and 3 ½ sovereigns to A1. Besides, some silver vessels were given as 'Sridhana' and they also gave a sum of Rs.10,000/-. After marriage, A1 and the deceased Rajalakshmi were residing in the house of A2, who is the mother of A1, as joint family. The marriage life of A1 and the deceased was cordial in the initial stage. After the deceased conceived, the second accused has given hard work to the deceased and hence, the deceased suffered some mental agony. Due to that, the fetus was not growing properly and as per the advise of the Doctor, the fetus was aborted in the presence of A1, A2 and P.W.1 and at the time of abortion, P.W.1 has spent some amount for medical expenses. Thereafter, the deceased conceived and the accused Nos.1 & 2 have arranged for Bangle wearing ceremony and at that time, P.W.1 has also given some amount and a girl child was born. After the child birth, P.W.1 has also given some gold chain and some other ornaments and also gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- for vaccination to the child. When they went to family deity, P.W.1 has also provided dress and other materials to the child and also gave a sum of Rs.10,000/- to A1. As P.W.21, who is the brother of the deceased, was working in abroad, A1 demanded money through the deceased and other accused, who are the mother, sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, have also caused cruelty.

(ii) When the matter stood thus, three months prior to the death of the deceased, A1 has given a complaint against the deceased to the Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai. The Police had called upon P.Ws.1 & 2 for an enquiry and in the enquiry, A1 refused to live with the deceased and also A1 stated that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and she required proper medical care, for which, P.W.1 also gave Rs.5,000/- and again, she gave money for medical expenses. Thereafter, A1 started to demand a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from P.W.1 to take a house on lease. Thereafter, A1 left the deceased in the P.W.1's house and sent a legal notice marked under Ex.P4.

(iii) When the matter stood thus, on 12.07.2014 the deceased while in the upstairs committed suicide by self-strangulation using Dupatta. Immediately, P.W.1 has given a complaint to P.W.26-Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srirangam and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.26 registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2015 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the same was marked as Ex.P42. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police had sent a copy of the FIR to the Revenue Divisional Officer- P.W.25 under Ex.P43 for enquiry and has also prepared an inquest for post-mortem.

(iv) P.W.11 is the elder sister of the deceased and P.W.21 is the brother of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and they deposed in tune with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 was working as