Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Anbarrasu @ Stanley Jones Anbarasu @ Stanley David Anbarasu – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Continuous dowry harassment must be established to convict under Section 304(B) IPC; presumption of guilt arises if the prosecution demonstrates a proximate link between harassment and death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 304
(B), 498(A), 304
(B) r/w 114 - Dowry death - Conviction of appellants confirmed for harassment and dowry demand leading to the death of the deceased - Five essential elements for conviction under Section 304
(B) established by prosecution - Evidence from family members deemed credible despite defense's claims of fabricated documents and lack of independent witnesses - Continuous harassment and dowry demands shown to have existed prior to death. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 24, 26)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 113-B - Presumption in dowry death cases - Continuous nature of harassment must be established to invoke presumption against the accused. (Paras 11, 14.1, 14.4)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for dowry death following the self-immolation of the deceased, who faced continuous harassment for dowry demands. The prosecution presented testimonies from family members and a letter from the deceased detailing the harassment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of dowry death as defined under Section 304
(B) of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution successfully demonstrated the continuous dowry harassment faced by the deceased, establishing a proximate link between the harassment and her death, thus affirming the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of legal provisions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. evidence and its relevance to dowry death (Para 14) |
| 5. court's findings on evidence and presumption (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final ruling and order of the court (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated27.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, in S.C.No.194 of 2002, wherein the appellants were convicted as follows:
During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant had died.
2.The case of the prosecution runs thus:
The first appellant herein married P.W.1's daughter, namely, Christilda Jane, the deceased, on 26.01.1994 in Kaliyankadu Church as per the Christian rituals. During their wedlock, a male child was born on 28.03.1995. On 13.05.1996 A1's younger brother got married to a girl from a wealthy family and therefore the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by these appellants for not bringing more dowry. Therefore, the deceased preferred a complaint on 20.07.1999 to the All Women Police Station, Nagercoil. The said complaint was closed on an undertaking that A1 and the deceased would live in a separate house. Subsequently, A1 and the deceased along with the child stayed at the rental house of P.W.5. Even after that the harassment demanding dowry continued and she was unable to bear the torture, hence, the deceased self immolated herself with her child in the rental house. The neighbours and the owner of the house broke open the door and informed to the fire service and recovered the body. Thereafter, father of the deceased gave a complaint to the jurisdictional police, who registered a case, conducted the investigation and arrested the accused. They also obtained the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, examined a number of witnesses and also recovered a letter written by the deceased to the family of P.W.1 relating to the harassment meted out to her in the matrimonial house. They also sent the letter for the Hand writing expert's opinion and obtained the positive report.
3.The first investigating officer, namely, P.W.27 conducted the investigation by altering the offence under Section 302 to 304 B of IPC and the same was continued by P.W.28 another Investigating Officer, a DSP and he filed the final report. The final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, for the offence under Section 304 (B) of and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2002. After furnishing copies of records to the appellants under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the learned Judicial Magistrate,No.II, Nagercoil, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 (A) of Cr.P.C. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.194 of 2002 by the Mahila Sessions Fast Track Court, Nagercoil. The learned Judge framed necessary charges, questioned the appellant under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4.The Prosecution examined 28 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.28 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.39. The accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , and they simply denied the incriminating portions. They neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants as stated supra. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed by the appellants.
6.The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the entire case rests on the interested testimony of the relatives of the deceased, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 and previous complaint Ex.P12. To disprove the
