The prosecution must establish the elements of dowry death and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act in cases involving dowry-related offenses.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer:  Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered in S.C.No.450 of 2013, on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai and acquit the accused from the offence.)

Common Judgment:

1. On 07.05.2013, when P.W.10/Karpagavalli, the Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty at K2 Ayanavaram Police Station, P.W.1 appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that her daughter, namely, Jagadeeswari aged about 19 years was married to the first accused nine months before and the couple lived together only for two months. Thereafter, the first accused/Anandhan and the second accused/Lakshmi treated her with cruelty, demanding jewels and money as dowry. Even though to the best of her ability, the mother of the victim had given 10 sovereigns and articles at worth of Rs.60,000/- at the time of marriage, they continued to torture her. On the fateful day, at about 5.30 A.M., she received a telephone call asking her to come to her daughter''s home. When she went to the daughter''s house nobody was there and she was directed to go to KMC Hospital, where she saw the dead body of her daughter. Therefore, she is lodging the complaint and prayed to take action against the accused who tortured her daughter by demanding dowry and caused her death.

2. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.5 of 2013 was registered by the respondent/Police for the offense punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, P.W.11/Gnanasekaran, took up the case and made a final report proposing the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC. The case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.137 of 2013 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and after the appearance of the accused and furnishing of the copies as per Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and was taken on file in S.C.No.450 of 2013, and was made over to the Trial Court. The Trial Court after perusing the materials on record and after hearing the submissions on either side, framed charges under Sections 304(B) or in the alternative Section 306 of IPC and 498-A of IPC. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined one Jeeva as P.W.1, the first informant and mother of the victim; Pachaiyappan, brother of the victim as P.W.2; Shanthi, aunt of the victim as PW-3; another aunt of the victim Poun as P.W.4; Sumathi, neighbour as P.W.5; Srinivasan, and Gopal, who were the witness to the Observation Mahazar as P.W.6 & P.W.7; Kanthasamy, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry of the victim in this case, as P.W.8; Dr.Selvakumar, who conducted the Postmortem as P.W.9; the Sub-Inspector of Police/Karpagavalli, who registered the case, as P.W.10; and the Investigation Officer/Gnanasekarn, as P.W.11.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P-1. The statements given before the RDO were marked as Ex.P-2. The signature of P.W.2 contained in Ex.P-2, was marked as Ex.P-3. The Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.P-4. The signature of P.W.6 in the Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P-5. The signature of P.W.7 in the Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P-6. The Postmortem report was marked as Ex.P-7. The report of the RDO/P.W.8 was marked as Ex.P-8. The final opinion as to the cause of death was marked as Ex.P-9. The Viscera report was marked as Ex.P-10. The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-11. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P-12 and the Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P-13. The Saree which was used by the victim for committing suicide was produced as M.O.1.

5. Upon being questioned about the materials and incriminating circumstances on record, both the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of th