To convict under Section 498(A) IPC, the prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

JUDGMENT :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

1. The criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 29.04.2021 passed in S.C.No.177 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court of Eorde convicting the appellant/first accused for offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.01.2011, defacto complainant PW1 brother of the deceased Uma Maheswari lodged a complaint Ex.P1 to PW10 Sub Inspector of Police, who received complaint, registered FIR Ex.P9. Thereafter, FIR placed before PW11, who took up investigation in this case. The complaint is that marriage between appellant and deceased took place 16 years prior to 10.01.2011. During marriage, demand of 25 sovereigns of jewels were made. At that time, 15 sovereigns of jewels were presented and balance 10 sovereigns of jewels were undertaken to be given later but not complied. Hence, the demand of dowry was continues and there was harassment in this regard. Out of marriage, they had two children namely Devaguru and Ilango. Prior night on 10.01.2011, there was a demand of Rs.10,000/- as dowry by the appellant and his mother and victim harassed and humiliated. Next day morning at 6.30 a.m., the deceased went to her parents’ house, which is two houses away. There, she complained to her mother PW2 and brother PW1 about the demand, they pacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial home on the promise that within two days, they would pay the dowry amount. Thereafter, PW1 went to his job and PW2 was at home. At about 2.30 p.m. a neighbour informed PW2 about the death of her daughter by hanging and PW1 was also informed, both came to know victim taken to Govt. Hospital, Anthiyur. Both went there and saw his sister with injuries and contusion on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint to PW10 Sub Inspector of Police.

3. PW10, after receiving complaint, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch in presence of one Suresh Kumar and Kumaravadivelu PW5. Inquest conducted and PW9 was nominated as in- charge person for the body. PW7 is the post mortem doctor, who conducted post mortem, gave his report Ex.P6 and final opinion Ex.P7 confirming deceased death could have occurred due to asphyxia and by hanging. Hyoid bone collected, sent to PW6 Doctor, who gave the report that ante mortem inward fracture noted on right side upper end of greater cornu of hyoid bone with surrounding tissue contusion. The viscera collected and sent to PW8, who gave report Ex.P8 confirming no poison detected. Accused was arrested on the next day at 11.15 a.m. and sent for remand. After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting documents, PW12 filed charge sheet before the trial Court against the appellant and his mother.

4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW12 examined, Ex.P1 to P15 marked. No material objects produced. DW1 son of the appellant and deceased examined and one Court document Ex.C1 marked.

5. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court acquitted the appellant’s mother from all charges, acquitted the appellant from offences under sections 306, 302 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted him for offence under Section 498-A alone and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment, against which, the present criminal appeal.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case, marriage between appellant and deceased Uma Maheswari was 16 years b