The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.

JUDGMENT :

G.Arul Murugan, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgement dated 23.03.2022 made in S.C.No.218 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.

2. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused Tamizhmani and the deceased Santhi Devi was performed on 22.04.2010. At the time of marriage the accused had demanded 25 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry. However only five sovereigns of gold jewels along with materials and other ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the accused had stayed in the in-laws house itself. The accused had the habit of consuming alcohol and often would quarrel with his wife, deceased. The accused was doing tile laying work and he did not go to work regularly. On 19.01.2011, the accused left his wife in PW2’s house and went to his village for his personal work.

4. He stayed back and the deceased continued to be in the place of her mother. The family members of the third accused viz., his father, mother and brother A1, A2 and A4 had visited the house of the deceased at Chennai and had invited her to come to village stating that the son has turned himself to be good. They had also threatened that if PW2 did not send the deceased to the matrimonial house along with five sovereigns of gold, they would in turn perform second marriage to the third accused. Thereafter, the sisters and mother of the deceased have brought the deceased to the village and left her in matrimonial house with the third accused on 29.05.2011 and left to their place at Chennai.

5. On the next day on 30.05.2011, at 6.00 p.m., P.W.2 received a message that her daughter Santhi Devi had died. Immediately P.W.2 along with her son and daughters rushed to the village. On finding that the deceased has died due to hanging and there were injuries in the body of the deceased, they lodged a complaint on 31.05.2011 in Ex.P1. P.W.11, Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered FIR, Ex.P9. The body was sent for post-mortem. Since the death happened within seven years from the date of marriage and it was under unnatural circumstances, the same was referred to P.W.10, the Revenue Divisional Officer. P.W.10, after conducting inquiry, furnished his report, Ex.P8, opining that the death could have been due to the demand of dowry.

6. P.W.9/Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem report/Ex.P3. P.W.11 prepared the rough sketch Ex.P10 and Observation Mahazar, Ex.P12. On receipt of the reports, final opinion of the Doctor/Ex.P4 and Viscera Report/ Ex.P5, P.W.11 altered the offences to Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. through Alteration Report in Ex.P11. P.W.14 completed the investigation and filed the Final Report before Judicial Magistrate – II, Thindivanam. Summons were issued and after complying with section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, under Sec.209 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.

7. On committal, the Trial Court took up the case and framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The prosecution, to prove the charges, examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P