Evidence must conclusively establish dowry-related cruelty preceding suicide to support conviction under IPC Section 304(B).

JUDGEMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, dated 28.09.2018, in S.C.No.55 of 2018.

2. The appellant is the sole accused, who has been found guilty by the learned trial Judge for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the records is that the accused and the deceased Sarala are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 13.04.2014. Their marriage is an arranged marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the accused harassed the deceased by demanding cot and bureau and the parents of the deceased had provided the same. The accused had been harassing the deceased by scolding that she was not given with sufficient jewels and dowry for marriage. The accused demanded the deceased to get 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and money from her parents. The parents of the deceased had given Rs. 40,000/-. Again, the accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry and that has caused mental breakdown for the deceased and she had committed suicide on 28.05.2014, at about 14.30 hours, by hanging herself in the house of the accused.

4. On the complaint given by the brother of the deceased (PW1), a case has been registered in Crime No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Vangal Police Station, Karur District. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused and after completing the legal mandates of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, charges have been framed against the accused for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC . When the accused was questioned, he denied his involvement and claimed to be tried.

5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW13 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P15 have been marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been marked.

6. After the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned supra. Aggrieved over that, the appellant / sole accused has preferred this appeal.

7. Mr.K.Ananthapadmanabhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Sreedhana articles allegedly given by the parents of the deceased are in the house of PW1; the appellant did not demand any dowry and there was some other issue between the deceased and the appellant; the prosecution has not established that there was any dowry harassment to the deceased immediately prior to her death; in order to establish an usual presumption in favour of the prosecution in respect of the charge under Section 304 (B) IPC , it has to be first proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death; PW1 has stated that his sister called him on 28.05.2014 and spoken about a Temple Festival and not about any demand for dowry; the occurrence is said to have taken place on 28.05.2014, had the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, the deceased would have conveyed this to her brother PW1; there are exaggerations and contradictions in the evidence of PW1; the mother of the deceased has also stated in her evidence that there was some