Insufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry demand results in overturning conviction for abetment of suicide; mere marital discord does not establish abetment under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, vide Judgment dated 22.12.2022 in S.C.No.93 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Additional Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2. (a) The case of the prosecution is that the first appellant/A1/husband of the victim had married the de-facto complainant’s daughter/victim on 19.05.2016, pursuant to a love affair; that the second appellant/mother of the first appellant/mother-in-law of the victim had committed cruelty in various ways; that thereafter, the victim and the first appellant set up a separate matrimonial home; that two weeks before the occurrence since the first appellant had to work on night shifts, he had dropped the victim in the house of P.W.1/mother of the victim; that the second appellant is said to have questioned the victim as to how she could go to her mother’s house instead of coming to the appellants’ house; that on 19.10.2016, the victim had called P.W.1 over phone and had stated that the appellants demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as dowry and if she was unable to bring the said amount, she could go and die and thereafter, the victim girl committed suicide and thus, the appellants committed the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(b) On a complaint [Ex.P1] given by P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police/P.W.15, registered an FIR [Ex.P10] on 21.10.2016, under Section 174 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code which was marked as Ex.P10. Thereafter, the offences were altered to Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the IPC . The enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was not examined by the prosecution. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was marked as Ex.P15 through the Investigating Officer.

(c) The Investigating Officer/P.W.18/Deputy Superintendent of Police, after examining the neighbours and the relatives of the victim girl and collecting the other evidence filed the Final Report for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, on 24.10.2017.

(d) On the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, i.e., learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Court, Principal District Court, Coimbatore. The case was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Additional Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against the first appellant for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of IPC and against the second appellant for the offence under Section 498 (A) of and when questioned, the appellants pleaded ‘not guilty.’

(e) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. When the appellants were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The appellants examined three witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked three documents as Exs.D1 to D3 on their side.

(f) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the first appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the IPC and the