The absence of prima facie evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3 in a dowry harassment case led to their discharge under Section 304-B IPC.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C , petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 have challenged the impugned order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by accused Nos.2 and 3, including the petitioners seeking discharge.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Geetha Lakshmi. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers of accused No.1. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are the brothers of accused No.2. The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased took place on 19.05.2010. Alleging that accused No.1 is working as a Government Teacher and therefore, accused Nos.1 to 5 demanded and received dowry in the form of gold, ornaments and marriage was performed in a grand manner. However, after the marriage when deceased started living in the house of accused persons, they harassed and ill treated her for getting additional dowry, relieved her of her ornaments to purchase a second hand Tata Sumo vehicle and used to assault her. Accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with another woman. He used to assault her and ultimately left her in her parental home. He used to call her over phone and abuse her.

4. It is further alleged that even though in the Panchayat dated 20.04.2011, accused promised to take back the deceased to the matrimonial home and return her ornaments, they did not keep up with the promise. On the other hand on 02.06.2011, accused Nos.1 to 5 tried to abduct her and relieved her of four gold bangles, abused her in filthy language and also gave threat to her life. They left the place after people gathered. With these allegations deceased Geetha Lakshmi filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 5. However, after investigation, charge sheet in CC.No.31686/2011 came to be filed only against accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were dropped. The said proceedings are going on.

5. In this background, while staying in the house of her parents, On 07.01.2013, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan. She has left a death note. In this regard, the mother of the deceased filed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 8, reiterating the earlier allegations made in the complaint filed by deceased Geetha Lakshmi. It is further alleged that accused No.1 used to call deceased from coin booth and gave threat to take back the complaint filed against him and because of this reason, Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide. After conducting detailed investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act.

6. However, the proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 8 came to be quashed by this Court.

7. After committal accused Nos.1 to 3 filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge which came to be rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed this petition contending that the case of the prosecution does not indicate any role or involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in commission of the alleged offences. In the first information lodged by CW-1, there are no allegations against them, leading to the deceased committing suicide.

The death note left by the deceased only makes allegations against accused No.1 and there is no reference to accused Nos.2 and 3 of having ill treated or harassed the deceased.

7.1 Even the statements of CW-2 Venkatachalapathy, CW-9 Chandrakala also does not implicate accused Nos.2 and 3. When the concerned police have given clean chit to accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 323 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act, again filing charge sheet for the same offences is opposed to law. There are no material to frame charge against the accused Nos.2 and 3. No prima facie case is made out against them. Viewed from any angle, the impugn