The prosecution must show immediate connection between harassment for dowry and death for a conviction under dowry death provisions; absence of such evidence necessitates reliance on general cruelty provisions.

J U D G M E N T

Crl.A.No.1466 of 2006 is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.56 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I (Fast Track Court-I), Thalassery challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the said court as per its judgment dated 12.7.2006 under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' the I.P.C.'). Crl.A.No.2082 of 2006 is an appeal preferred by the appellants herein who are prosecution witness Nos.1,6,7 and 8 in S.C.No.56 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court Adhoc-I (Fast Track Court-I), Thalassery challenging the complaint filed against them under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ' the Cr.P.C'). on the allegation that they gave false evidence suppressing material facts in the above sessions case and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C.

2. As Crl.A.No.2082 of 2006 is originated against the complaint filed at the instance of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thalassery connected with the judgment in S.C.No.56 of 1999 which is under challenge in Cr.A.No.1466 of 2006 at the :-2-:

instance of the accused and as both the appeals are interconnected, the same were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For convenience, first of all I shall deal with Crl.A.No.1466 of 2006.

4. As pointed out earlier, this appeal is preferred by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Fast Track Court-I, Thalassery in S.C.No.56/1999.The allegation of prosecution is that the accused married the deceased Laly on 6.6.1994 and while they were living as man and wife in her matrimonial house, the accused tortured her mentally and physically demanding more dowry and due to the continuous intolerable torture, the said Laly committed suicide at the instance of the accused on 30.12.1995 at about 7 a.m. by consuming poison and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. Initially, Crime No.357 of 1995 was registered in the Iritty Police Station under the caption of 'unnatural death' on the basis of the statement given by CW-1 and subsequently, investigation was conducted by CWs.34 and 35 and during the course of investigation, the :-3-:

section was altered to Section 304 B I.P.C., on the basis of the report filed by CW34. On completing investigation, CW35 laid the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur where C.P.No.74 of 1998 was instituted and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 22.10.1998 in the above committal proceedings committed the case to the Sessions Court from where the case was made over to the trial court for disposal. On appearance of the accused, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge under Section 304B I.P.C. was framed which was read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty which resulted in further trial during which Pws.1 to 22 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Material objects such as Mos.1 to 4 were identified and marked during the trial. On completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating circumstances, which brought out during the prosecution evidence, put to him, he denied the same. During the defence evidence, the accused himself was examined as DW1 and besides him, Dws.2 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked as defence exhibits. On the basis of the rival :-4-:

contentions and pleadings, the trial court formulated two issues for its consideration and finally found that the accused/appellant was guilty under Section 304B I.P.C. and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and set off was allowed. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr.R.