The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of cruelty and abetment under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C, emphasizing the need to consider multiple incidents together to establish matrimonial cruelty.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed by the District Sessions, Mahila Court, Cuddalore in S.C.No.15 of 2013 dated 24.01.2014, call for the records and acquit the petitioner and pass orders.)

1. On 13.05.2012, at about 23.00 hours, Mrs.Jayapriya, wife of Kumar by pouring kerosene self immolated herself. Her husband admitted her in Government Hospital, Cuddalore with the burn injuries. On receipt of the intimation memo from the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, the Police recorded the statement of injured Jayapriya and registered the complaint in Crime No.62 of 2012 on 14.05.2012. Thereafter, Judicial Magistrate went to the Hospital recorded the statement of Jayapriya on 14.05.2012 at 02.05 a.m. For better treatment, Jayapriya was shifted to Jipmer Hospital at Pondicherry. However, she succumbed to the burn injuries on 17.05.2012 around 7.55 p.m.

2. The marriage between Jayapriya and Kumar was held three years prior to the occurrence. Hence, the Executive Magistrate conducted inquest and submitted his report on 21.05.2012 stating that the apparent cause of death is not clearly established but there seems to be demand of dowry and there is prima facie material to infer mental, physical and psychological harassment behind the death of the deceased.

3. In the course of investigation, the evidence collected revealed that the marriage between Kumar and Jayapriya deceased held on 03.10.2009. They have 11 months old child by name Keerthana. Ever since the marriage, the accused disliked the deceased and used to physically torture her and abuse her. 6 months before the occurrence, Jayapriya was severally attacked by the accused and she was treated in private hospital for the hip injury. To marry another lady, the accused was forcing the deceased to sign in a blank paper. Thus, he has committed offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C (Causing cruelty). Further, 20 days before the occurrence, the appellant forced Jayapriya to sign, in a blank paper to enable him to divorce Jayapriya and marry another lady. As a consequence of the said cruelty, on 13.05.2012, at about 11.00 p.m, Jayapriya set fire to herself by immolating herself. Thereby, the accused committed an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. With these two charges, the accused went for trial. The trial Court held him guilty of both the charges.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the dying declaration given by the deceased does not disclose any reason for commission of suicide. P.W.1 (Parvathi), the mother of the deceased is not a competent person to speak about the matters transpired between the husband and wife since P.W.1 is not residing along with them. The allegation of physical assault earlier to the incident and the admission of the deceased in the private hospital are allegations not proved with any medical records. In the absence of evidence to prove the demand of dowry or cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry, the Court below erred in convicting the appellant. There is no evidence to indicate that the appellant instigated or abetted his wife to commit suicide at any point of time. The domestic quarrel prevailed between the husband and the wife, cannot be termed as abetment to commit suicide. Refuse to talk with his wife due to domestic quarrel will not amount to cruelty more particularly, it shall not be presumed for abetment to commit suicide.

5. The Court below failed to appreciate the fact elicited during the cross examination of P.W.2 that there was quarrel with the accused 20 days prior to the incident and in that quarrel, the accused was manhandled by the family members of the deceased which was not objected by the deceased and therefore, the appellant stopped talking with the deceased. The inquest conducted by the RDO with the neighbour also had not stated anything about dowry harassment. In the said circumstances, the convi