A dowry death conviction requires credible evidence linking the accused to specific dowry demands; insufficient linkage leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT 

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-III), Tiruvallur in S.C.No.41 of 2010.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Dhanalakshmi married Mahesh/A1 on 10.03.2008 and after marriage, she was subjected to dowry harassment by Mahesh/A1 and his parents Ramachandran/A2 and Vasantha/A3, on account of which, she committed suicide on 06.03.2009 by self-immolation in her matrimonial home. On the complaint (Ex.P1), lodged by Mahendran (PW1), brother of the deceased, Valli (PW11), the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2009 under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C. on 07.03.2009 and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P10), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 09.03.2009 at 11.30 a.m. Since the death was within 7 years of marriage, Subbarayan (PW10), the Executive Magistrate, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and submitted the Inquest Report (Ex.P9), opining that the death of Dhanalakshmi was due to dowry harassment. Investigation of the case was taken over by Srininvasan (PW12), the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who despatched the body for postmortem. Dr.Anbuselvan (PW8), who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, in his evidence as well in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P7), he has stated as follows :

"The deceased would appear to have died of hypovolemic shock due to burns (100%)." The Viscera Report (Ex.P6) did not show the presence of any poison in the visceral organs. Srinivasan (PW12) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P11) and the Rough Sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of witnesses Munusamy (PW6) and Paulraj (PW7). From the place of occurrence, he seized a 10 litre plastic can with kerosene (MO1), matchbox (MO2) and a partly burnt skirt (MO3) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P13), in the presence of Munusamy (PW6) and Paulraj (PW7). After examining the witnesses and collecting various reports, Srinivasan (PW12) filed Final Report in P.R.C.No.31 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against Mahesh/A1, Ramachandran/A2 and Vasantha/A3, who are the appellants herein.

3.On the appearance of the appellants, copies of relied upon documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.41 of 2010 for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC alternatively 306 IPC against the appellants and when they were questioned, they pleaded 'not guilty'.

4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and three material objects. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. No witness was examined nor any document marked on behalf of the appellants.

5.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment dated 09.09.2011 in S.C.No.41 of 2010, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under.

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court. before this Court.

6.Heard Mr.D.J.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.G.Ramar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State.

7.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to catalogue the following facts admitted by either si