The court established that minor domestic quarrels do not constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Sections 498(A) and 304(B), emphasizing the necessity for credible evidence of dowry harassment leading to suicide.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1.The Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment dated 16.11.2023 passed in S.C.No.62 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, convicting the appellants/A1 to A4 for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 304(B) of the IPC and sentencing them as follows:

2. (i) The case of the prosecution is that the 1^st appellant got married to the deceased in the year 2016; that on 27.09.2018, the deceased was staying in her parent's house; that between 2.00 p.m., and 5.00 p.m., she had administered poison to her child aged about 1 ½ years and she committed suicide by hanging; that about 5.00 p.m., when PW1 returned home, she found the deceased hanging and she informed PW2, the father of the deceased.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW2, father of the deceased had lodged a complaint [Ex.P4 and Ex.P10]. The said complaint was registered as an FIR [Ex.P9] in Cr.No.467 of 2018 by PW14 underSection 174 (3) of the Cr.P.C.. PW17 took up the investigation and after conducting substantial part of the investigation had handed over the investigation to PW18, who filed the final report as against the appellants for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 304(B) IPC , before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, which was taken on file as PRC No.12 of 2020.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions ofSection 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, was committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.62 of 2020. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 304(B) of the IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P23, besides 3 material objects, viz., M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the all the appellant/accused guilty of the offence underSections 498 (A) and 304(B) of the IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Hence, the accused have preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the victim died at the house of her parents; that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 as regards dowry harassment does not inspire confidence; that the three witnesses had not stated about the alleged dowry harassment in their earlier versions; that the seizure of Ex.P2, alleged suicide note and Ex.P3, letter is highly doubtful and there is no explanation by the prosecution for the inordinate delay of 9 months in sending the two documents to Court, which was sent on 07.06.2019; that Ex.P2 and Ex.P