The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of dowry-related cruelty and instigation to suicide, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide Judgment dated 08.09.2022 in S.C.No.54 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethmandram, Allikulam, Chennai.

2(a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased got married on 26.12.2012, in the presence of elders; that after marriage, they were living in Andhra Pradesh; that at the time of marriage, the father of the deceased had gifted 100 sovereigns of gold jewels, 5 kg of silver utensils, Rs.10 lakhs of cash, besides executing a gift deed for 5 acres of agricultural land in favour of the deceased; that on 14.01.2013, the appellant had sent the deceased to her aunt's house; that when the father and the aunt of the deceased asked the appellant to take her back, the appellant is said to have told them that he would take the deceased only if 100 sovereigns of gold jewels was handed over to him and the land was transferred to his name; that a compromise was arrived at by which, the appellant agreed to receive Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and thereafter, took the deceased to Chennai, where he was working from January 2013 and caused cruelty in connection with dowry demand, as result of which, on 07.10.2013, the deceased committed suicide.

(b). On the complaint given by P.W.1, the landlord of the house in which the appellant and the deceased resided, a case in Crime No.2777 of 2013 was registered under Section 174 (3) of Cr.P.C. The Sub Inspector of Police/P.W.10, who registered the FIR, had handed over the investigation to P.W.12/Assistant Commissioner of Police. An inquest was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who gave the report [Ex.P9] under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The investigation was thereafter taken up by P.W.13/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who, on examination of further witnesses, had filed the Final Report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(c) It is seen from the record that though the Final Report was filed only for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC and, in the alternative, for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.'

(d). To prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to P11. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant had neither examined any witness nor marked any document. (e) The Trial Court on consideration of the oral evidence, especially the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5, held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand soon before her death and found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and also under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced the appellant as follows:

Hence, the appeal.

3. Heard, Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

4. (a) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.5 would suggest that the allegation with regard to dowry demand and cruelty in connection with the said demand is an afterthought and invented for the purpose of prosecuting the appellant for the alleged offences; that P.W.2 had admitted in the cross examination that he had not stated several vital facts to the investigating officers during investigation; that the