Ranganathan v. Sakthivel2. Viswanathan3. Jayalakshmi4. Ponnambalam5. Ravichandran6. Sarangapani7. State

In thepanchayat, A1 and his parents have demanded 50 cents of land and 10sovereigns of gold ornaments as dowry for conducting the marriage of Shanthi with A1. He had agreed to give three sovereigns of gold ornaments and besides household articles and also agreed to execute a sale deed for50 cents. Thereafter the marriage between, deceased Shanthi was solemnised with A1 at Kailasanathar Koil, Ulundurpet and even after the marriage both the couples were staying only in his house. According to him, he had only registered the sale deed for 50 cents but failed to give three sovereigns of jewels as agreed upon by him towards dowry. Accordingto him, the panchayat took place on 5th and the sale agreement was entered on 6th and the marriage was registered on 7th and even thereafter the accused had failed to take his daughter with them. It is the specific allegation of P.W.2 that the accused laid a condition that if the dowry has agreed between the parties are given by P.W.2, they will not take the deceased Shanthi to their house.

Even thereafter his daughter with in his house for about one month. When approached A4, Ponnambalam in whose lands, the occurrence had taken place has advised him to give dowry as agreed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ upon. When he took his daughter Shanthi to the house of A1, A1's mother had abused him and made an attempt to assault him with broom stick. A5 has also abused him. Thereafter, he brought his daughter to home and she had stayed in his house about 10 days. A1 did not take Shanthi to his house. On19.6.1993 by noon, the deceased Shanthi went to the garden of A1, after informing one Kandasamy. According to P.W.2, even the accused beat his daughter Shanthi in the garden and thereafter, he heard that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself in a neem tree in the land of Ponnambalam. According to him, Ex P2 letter was seized by RevenueDivisional Officer from the corpse of his daughter.4c.

P.W.3 Kannan, is the brother of P.W.2. According to him, there was a panchayat took place in the house of A1 and the panchayatars are oneRanganathan, Kodivel and Kandasamy and in the panchayat, according to him,A1 and his parents have demanded 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, besides house hold articles towards dowry. But P.W.2 had agreed to offer three sovereigns of gold ornaments besides cot, Bureau and other household articles. According to P.W.3, the accused have also demanded 50 cents of land and that they have obtained signatures in a blank bond paper to the value ofRs.2,000/- and that marriage between the deceased Shanthi and A1 took place in a temple and after the marriage, the couples were taken to the house of P.W.2, where they have stayed for nearly one month and that the accused refused to take Shanthi unless, she brings the agreed dowry and ten days thereafter A1 had agreed to take his wife to his house and on the assurance given by A1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 took the couples to A1's house but they immediately returned with Shanthi.

Thereafter, A1 did not come to the house of Shanthi and he heard that Shanthi had committed suicide and that P.W.1 ,the Village Administrative Officer, had preferred a complaint.4d. P.W.4 is the another brother of P.W.2, who had also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. He speaks about the demand of dowry by the accused before the panchayat and also the intimidation made by the accused when the deceased Shanthi was taken to the house of A1. Accordingto him, Shanthi, before her death, had informed him that she is going to the house of A1 Sakthivel and that on the same day, evening he heard that Shanthi had committed suicide.4e. P.W.5 Kandasamy speaks about the registered marriage which took place between the deceased Shanthi and A1 at Kailasanathar Koil, Ulundurpet and that he had signed as a witness for the marriage which took place between the deceased Shanthi and A1. According to him, even after the marrige Shanthi was living with her parents along with A1 for sometime and he heard about the death of Shanthi by suicide. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4f.

P.W.6 is the another Village Administrative Officer and that on the date of occurrence, he was on permission and P.W.1 was in additional in charge of Srupuliyur Village. According to him, the police had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P3 Observation mahazar in his presence.4g. P.W.7 is the another witness in the Mahazar. P.W.8 Dhandapani was the Sub Registrar of Cuddalore Sub Registrar's office at the relevant point of time. According to him, on 7.5.1993 the marriage between the deceased Shanthi and A1 took place in Sri Vinaithirthar Vinayagar Temple, Cuddalore and for the registration of the said marriage, an application was presented before him and after ascertaining the factum of marriage between the deceased Shanthi and A1, he had registered the marriage and obtained the signature of Shanthi and A1 in the marriage register Ex P8maintained in his office. 4h. P.W.9 would depose that the marriage between the deceased Shanthiand A1 took place in Kailasanathar Temple, Ulundurpet and thereafter marriage was registered in the register office, Cuddalore.

P.W.10 is the photographer, who took photographs after the occurrence. According to him, M.O.1 series are the photographs taken by him.4i. P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the case on the basis of the complaint ExP1 preferred by P.W.1 on 19.6.1993 at about 10.45p.m., under Thirunavalur Police Station crime No.481/93 under Sdection 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex P4 is the first information report. Since the deceased Shanthi had committed suicide, within seven years from the date of her marriage, and the copy of the first information report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam and also Deputy Superintendentof Police, Virudhachalam besides sending the copies to the Court.4j. P.W.12 is the postmortem constable, who had identified the corpse after Revenue Divisional Officer had the enquiry before the GovernmentDoctor, Ulundupet and has identified the corpse to the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of Shanthi.

Ex P6 is the letter of requisition given by Investigating Officer. P.W.13 the post mortem doctor, who had conducted autopsy on 21.6.1993 at 10.30a.m.,. The doctor had opined that due to asphyxia the deceased Shanthi would have died 40 to48 hours prior to Autopsy. ExP8is the post mortem certificate. 4k. P.W.16 the Investigation Officer, who had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex P3 and also had drawn arough sketch ExP12. Thereafter, he had made arrangement to take photographs on the dead body through photographer. He had informed the Revenue Divisional Officer for enquiry. P.W.15 is the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, who had conducted an inquest on the corpse of the deceased on the basis of the letter of requisition Ex P7, made by P.W.16. Ex P8 is the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ observation Mahazar prepared by P.W.15 and he had also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and had conducted inquest in the presence of P.W.5 and other witnesses. ExP9 is the inquest report. Hehad also submitted his final report Ex P11 to the District Collector , and has also seized Ex P2 letter from the corpse. P.W.16 had conducted further investigation and the final report was filed by P.W.14 against the accused under Section 304 (B) and 498(A) of IPC .

In the inquest report Ex P9, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer had mentioned that in his enquiry with the villagers, he has cometo know about some harassment for dowry which might have driven the victim girl to the extreme step of committing suicide. According to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution , in the inquest, the Revenue Divisional Officer had recoveredEx P2 letter from the corpse of the deceased. On a reading of Ex P2 willgo to show that it should have been written by Shanthi before the marriage and not after the marriage. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the demand of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 50 cents of lands were made before the panchayatars, but to our dismay, there were nopanchayatars examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the demand made by the accused in the panchayat for 50 cents of lands and 10sovereigns of gold ornaments.

Ex D5 is the sale deed executed by P.W2 in favour of A2, the father of A1. If Ex D5 sale deed was executed on6.5.1993, there is no necessity for the accused to make any demand for 50cents of lands by way of dowry as rightly observed by the learned trialJudge that there is no explanation forthcoming on the side of the prosecution that ExD5 sale deed was executed by P.W.2 in favour of A2, the father of A1.Only in lieu of the dowry demand made by A1 and his parents. It is in evidence that even after the marriage, A1 was also residing with the deceased in the house of P.W.2 for nearly one month. If the case of the prosecution is true, then the accused would not have agreed for amarriage to be taken place before a temple, which was followed by registration of the same before the Sub Registrar, Cuddalore. There is absolutely no evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC to warrant conviction as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, which in my opinion, does not warrant any interference from this Court. The point is answered accordingly.