Vasantha Ravi v. C.B.I.

also was found not guilty and acquitted of two charges only, namelythe charges for offences punishable under Section 304-B IPC r/w 34IPC and an offence punishable under Section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act r/w 34 IPC. However, he was found guilty of anoffence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in respect of the firstcharge, convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergoimprisonment and pay fine as indicated above. Challenging hisconviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the sentenceimposed thereon, the appellant (first accused) has come forward withthe present appeal on various grounds set out in the appeal petition.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated asfollows:i) The appellant/first accused is the husband of the deceasedUma Maheswari. She was an advocate by profession prior to hermarriage with the appellant/first accused. P.W.11 - Sathyanarayananand P.W.12 - Geetha Sathyanarayanan are the parents of deceased UmaMaheswari. P.W.15-Senthil and P.W.16-Sridhar are the brothers ofdeceased Uma Maheswari. P.W.14-Komalavalli is the mother of P.W.12and thus the maternal grandmother of deceased Uma Maheswari. P.Ws.4and 5 are close relatives of P.W.12 - Geetha Sathyanarayanan. P.W.3is also a relative of Geetha Sathyanarayanan. The marriage ofdeceased Uma Maheswari with the appellant/first accused took place inthe month of August, 1994 in Chennai. Thereafter, they were livingat door No.87, Saminathan Naicker Street, Ariankuppam, Pondicherry(now Puducherry) Union Territory along with A2 - Indiraniammal, themother of the appellant and Jayanthi daughter of A2. Subsequently,the deceased and her husband, namely the appellant herein set up aseparate family for themselves in the first floor portion of the saidhouse whereas Indiraniammal the mother of the appellant, wasoccupying the ground floor portion of the said house. ii) While so, on 30.04.1996 at about 10.30 p.m the dead body ofthe deceased Uma Maheswari was found hanging in a room in the firstfloor of the above said house. On seeing the same, theappellant/first accused informed the police at about 11.45 p.m, basedon which a case was registered on the file of Ariankuppam Policestation in crime No.61/1996 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The originalfirst information was received by P.W.1 - Thambu Ganapathy, Tahsildarcum Executive Magistrate in the office of the Deputy Collector(Revenue), Puducherry. He received the first information Report atabout 9.00 a.m on 01.05.1996. Upon such receipt, he proceededtowards Ariankuppam Police station, met the Sub-Inspector of Police,Ariankuppam Police station, took him to the place of occurrence atdoor No.84, Saminathan Naicken Street, Ariankuppam Street, peepedthrough the window of the room which was bolted from inside and foundthe dead body of Uma Maheswari hanging from the fan hook attached tothe ceiling. On his instructions, after breaking open the door, thedead body was brought down. However, after noticing theidentification mark and salient features of the dead body with thehelp of the woman constable Selva Mary examined as P.W.6, P.W.1caused the dead body to be taken to the Government General Hospital,Pondicherry without conducting an inquest on the spot, as accordingto him, no one came forward to participate in the inquest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iii) On 02.05.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. at Government GeneralHospital, Pondicherry, P.W.17-Periyasamy, the then Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Ariankuppam Police station conducted inquest over the deadbody of Uma Maheswari in the presence of Panchayatdars and preparedEx.P32-Inquest Report. Subsequently, on receipt of Ex.P10-Report ofthe Tahsildar addressed to the Station House Officer, AriankuppamPolice Station, the case was altered by P.W.17 into one for offencespunishable under Sections 306 IPC r/w 34 IPC and 498-A IPC r/w 34IPC arraying the appellant and his mother Indiraniammal as A1 and A2,for which Ex.P33-Alteration Report was prepared and sent by him tothe jurisdictional magistrate. iv) On 03.05.1996, the case diary file was handed over by P.W.17to the Inspector of Police for the concerned circle to proceed withthe further investigation of the case. Thereafter, the investigationwas taken over by Mr.Vijayanarayanan, Superintendent of Police.Subsequently, on his transfer, P.W.18-Shanmugasundaram,Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry (South) took up theinvestigation from 06.11.1996. After completing investigation,P.W.18 submitted a final report for the prosecution of the appellantand his mother Indiraniammal for an offence punishable under Section304-B r/w 34 IPC or in the alternative for offences punishable underSections 498-A r/w 34 IPC, 306 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act r/w 34 IPC. It seems, thereafter an order was passedby this court on 19.12.1997 in Crl.O.P.No.5042/1997 for the re-investigation of the case, whereupon the case diary file was sent toP.W.9-V.J.Chandran, the Superintendent of Police (CID), who took upthe investigation of the case on 21.01.1998. Later on by virtue ofan order dated 12.05.1999 made in Crl.O.P.No.19163/1998, theinvestigation was transferred to CBI, whereupon the case was re-registered as RC No.2/S/99/CBI/SCB under Sections 498-A IPC, 304-BIPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC againstthe appellant and his mother Indiraniammal and Jayanthi, the sisterof the first accused/daughter of the second accused, for whichEx.P38-First Information Report was registered. P.W.21-G.Kalaimani,the Inspector of Police, CBI Special Branch took up the investigationof the case. P.W.21, after completion of investigation, submitted afinal report for prosecuting the appellant/first accused and hismother Indiraniammal (A2) alone for the offences punishable underSections 304-B, 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC. The same was taken on file bythe Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry asP.R.C.No.28/1997. v) On appearance of the accused persons before the committalcourt they were supplied with the copies of documents proposed to berelied on by the prosecution to prove the case of the prosecution andafter following the procedure for committing the case for trial, thesame was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry fortrial. The learned Principal Sessions Judge took it on file asS.C.No.10/1998 and made it over to the learned III AdditionalSessions Judge, Pondicherry for disposal according to law. vi) Upon considering the records and after hearing thesubmissions made on the side of the prosecution and also on behalf ofthe accused, charges were framed for offences under Section 304-B r/w https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34 IPC, Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons, namely the appellant/A1and his mother Indiraniammal/A2. The accused denied the charges andpleaded not guilty, pursuant to which trial was conducted by thetrial court in which 21 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to P.W.21and 43 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.43 and 175 materialobjects were produced as M.Os.1 to 175 on the side of theprosecution. vii) After the completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the incriminating materials found in the evidence of theprosecution were culled out and the accused were examined underSection 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C regarding the same. They denied suchevidence as false and reiterated their stand they were not guilty ofany offence. During the course of examination, the prosecutionwitnesses, Exs.D1 to D15 were marked on the side of the accused asdefence documents. No witness was examined on the side of theaccused. viii) The learned trial judge, thereafter heard the argumentsadvanced on either side and considered the evidence brought beforehim in the light of such arguments. Upon such a consideration, thelearned trial judge came to the conclusion that none of the chargesframed against Indiraniammal, the mother of the appellant who figuredas accused No.2, stood proved and hence acquitted her completely.The learned trial judge also came to the conclusion that the chargesunder Sections 304-B IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC as against the appellant/firstaccused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordinglyacquitted the appellant/first accused of the above said charges. Sofar as the first charge, namely the charge for an offence punishableunder Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC is concerned, the learnedtrial judge came to the conclusion that the appellant/first accusedwas proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the offence ofcruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC, convicted him for thesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fineas indicated above. The said conviction and sentence are beingchallenged by the appellant in this appeal.4. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is asfollows:-"Whether the judgment of the trial court convictingand sentencing the appellant for the offence underSection 498-A IPC suffers from any defect or illegality,capable of being interfered with in exercise of theappellate powers of this court?"5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant,Mr.M.G.Sankaran, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,learned counsel on record for the appellant, submitted that thejudgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the offenceunder Section 498-A and the order of punishment incorporated thereincould not be sustained in law; that the trial court committed a graveerror in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable underSection 498-A IPC while acquitting him of the offences punishable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; thatthe conviction recorded by the trial court convicting the appellantfor an offence under Section 498-A was made merely on conjectures andsurmises than on the evidence having the tendency to prove the chargebeyond reasonable doubt; that the trial court erroneously interpretedthe contents of Ex.D7 to use it against the appellant, whereas thesame would clearly show that the appellant, in fact tried to dissuadehis wife's mind from thoughts leading to frustration and dejection;that the court below failed to properly appreciate the fact that theinability to bear a child and the attitude of the mother of thedeceased and not any harassment on the part of the appellant, whichmade the deceased to show interest in the institution of Sri SaiBabha of Puttaparthi; that the learned trial judge failed to notethat the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, tried toimplicate the mother of the appellant alone for harassment on thedeceased and that when the court having come to the conclusion thatthe mother of the appellant was not guilty of any offence, shouldhave held that the charge as against the appellant for the offenceunder Section 498-A also was not proved beyond reasonable doubt whenthe quantity and quality of evidence adduced against him are lesserand inferior than the same adduced against A2, the mother of theappellant.6. The submissions made by Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned SpecialPublic Prosecutor (for CBI cases) on behalf of the respondent policein answer to the above said submissions made by the learned counselfor the appellant were also heard and this court paid its anxiousconsiderations to the same. The materials available on record werealso perused.7. The appellant as A1 and his mother as A2 were prosecuted inone and the same trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-Ar/w 34 IPC, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct r/w Section 34 IPC. When the charge is framed under a penalprovision r/w Section 34 of IPC, it amounts to an allegation that thecriminal act was committed by all the persons accused of the saidoffence in furtherance of the common intention of all. All the threecharges have been framed for specific offences under Section 498-AIPC, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to be read withSection 34 of IPC denoting that the acts constituting the saidoffences were committed by both the accused persons in furtherance oftheir common intention. What was their common intention? - has notbeen explicitly spelt out in each one of the charges. The firstcharge was framed to the effect that A1 and A2 demanded 25 sovereignsof gold jewels, a Maruti car and a cash of Rs.50,000/- as dowry andthey committed cruelty and harassment on the deceased Uma Maheswarito get them as dowry. The second charge had been framed to theeffect that on 30.04.1996 about 10.30 p.m Uma Maheswari committedsuicide by hanging unable to bear the cruelty caused on her by theappellant (A1) and his mother (A2) and their act would amount to anact of dowry death, punishable under Section 304-B IPC and that thesaid offence was committed by the appellant (A1) and his mother (A2)in furtherance of the common intention. The third charge was framedto the effect that from January 1994 till the death of Uma Maheswari,the appellant (A1) and his mother (A2) demanded from Uma Maheswarigold jewels, diamond ear studs, nose screw, ring, silver vessels https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ weighing 4 Kgs, household articles worth Rs.35,000/-, 19 items ofbronze vessels, cot, almirah, wearing apparels worth Rs.15,000/-,jewels weighing 25 sovereigns, Maruti car and a cash of Rs.50,000/-as dowry and thus they had committed the offence of demanding dowrypunishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section34 IPC. 8. The appellant's mother was acquitted of all the threeoffences. The appellant (A1) also was acquitted of the offencespunishable under Section 304-B IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC in respect of which chargeNos.2 and 3 had been framed. He was convicted in respect of chargeNo.1 alone for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-AIPC. When two persons were prosecuted in one and the same trial foran offence constituted by their acts committed in furtherance of acommon intention, the acquittal of one of them shall have its ownimpact on the charge as against the other. In this case, though theappellant (A1) and his mother (A2) are alleged to have jointlycommitted the offence under Section 498-A IPC, after appreciation ofevidence, the learned trial judge has chosen to acquit the mother ofthe appellant (A2) holding that the charge against her was not provedbeyond reasonable doubt. Keeping the said fact in mind, the offencefor which the appellant (A1) has been convicted, shall be considered.9. P.W.4 - Dr.K.Rajagopal, his wife Krishnaveni (P.W.5), P.W.9 -Saikrishna, the parents of the deceased Uma Maheswari, namely P.W.11-Sathyanarayanan and P.W.12-Geetha Sathyanarayanan, P.W.13 -V.K.Narayanan @ Thatha, P.W.14 - Komalavalli (the grandmother ofdeceased Uma Maheswari), the brothers of deceased Uma Maheswari,namely P.W.15 - Senthil and P.W.16 - Sridhar were the witnessesexamined on the side of the prosecution to prove the charge againstthe appellant. Apart from the oral evidence of above said witnesses,Exs.P1 to P43 were also perused in support of the prosecution case.The accused also marked Exs.D1 to D15 as defence documents eventhough no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the accusedpersons. Let us now consider the strength of the evidences adduced onthe side of the prosecution in respect of charge No.1.10. P.W.4 - Dr.K.Rajagopal and P.W.5 - Smt.Krishnaveni arehusband and wife. They are close relatives of P.W.12-GeethaSathyanarayanan. Geetha Sathyanarayanan is the maternal uncle'sdaughter of P.W.5. It is the evidence of the prosecution that P.Ws.4and 5 were the persons who arranged for the marriage of the deceasedwith the appellant. They have spoken to the effect that, it was themother of the appellant, namely A2-Indiraniammal who made all thedemands before the marriage and after marriage. Nowhere in theirevidence, they have stated that there was any demand made by theappellant (A1). In fact, the trial court even brushed aside theirevidence against the mother of the appellant regarding the allegeddemand of dowry prior to and subsequent to the date of marriage. Thatis why the court below has chosen to acquit the mother of theappellant, namely A2, of the offences punishable under Sections 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act and Section 304-B of IPC. No specific instanceof cruelty has been cited by the above said witnesses either againstthe mother of the appellant, namely A2 or against the appellant (A1).No part of the testimonies of P.Ws.4 and 5 is capable of implicating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the appellant herein for committing the offence of cruelty punishableunder Section 498-A. Therefore, their testimonies are to be setapart as not useful for the prosecution to prove the charge ofcruelty punishable under Section 498-A against the appellant (A1). 11. P.W.9 - Saikrishna is a person, who allegedly attended thebetrothal function of Uma Maheswari. It is his evidence that duringthe betrothal ceremony, it was agreed between the parties to themarriage that the parents of deceased Uma Maheswari had to give UmaMaheswari 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and one pair of diamond earstuds, one diamond nose screw and one diamond ring and that at thetime of marriage, the parents of Uma Maheswari gave those jewels asagreed to. It is not the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12, the parents ofUma Maheswari, nor was it the evidence of P.W.15 - Senthil and P.W.16- Sridhar, the brothers of the deceased Uma Maheswari, that there wasa demand at the time of betrothal that the parents would give a pairof diamond ear studs, a diamond nose screw and a diamond ring to UmaMaheswari. It was also not the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. However,P.W.9 alone has chosen to state that such a demand was made at thetime of betrothal. The same seems to be an improvement made in thelight of the list of jewels handed over by the appellant to theparents of deceased Uma Maheswari admitting to be the jewels given toher by her parents as Sreedhana at the time of marriage. The listEx.P20 includes a diamond ring presented to the bridegroom, namelythe appellant at the time of marriage. In order to cover that also,evidence seems to have been adduced through P.W.9 to that effect. 12. It is quite unnatural for a newly wedded woman to demand forsetting up a separate residence for herself and her husband breakingaway from the parents' family of her husband, that too when hermother-in-law is a widow and an unmarried sister-in-law is alsothere. But, curiously, the evidence of P.W.9 is to the effect thatthe Mangal Sutra ceremony was held on the 10th day of the marriage andthat on that day itself Uma Maheswari complained that her mother-in-law Indraniammal (A2) insisted of supplying a Maruti car, 25sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.50,000/- cash to her for allowingUma Maheswari to set up a separate residence for her and her husband.It is the evidence of no other witness that such demand was made bythe appellant (A1). But, it is the evidence of P.W.9 that when UmaMaheswari made a complaint regarding the above said demand made byher mother-in-law Indraniammal, the appellant kept mum andsubsequently on the same day he refused to take food to be pacifiedand persuaded to take food. Even assuming that there was such acomplaint made by Uma Maheswari, it is not clear from the evidence ofP.W.9, whether the appellant's refusal to take food was in protestagainst the non-compliance with the demand or against the baselessallegation made against his mother. Even though, P.W.9 would statethat subsequent to the demand for the supply of Maruti car and otherthings for setting up a separate residence for the couple, it is thefact admitted by the prosecution witnesses examined in this regardthat the articles demanded were not given by the parents of thedeceased. However, it is admitted that the couple had set up aseparate residence for themselves in the first floor portion of thehouse of Indraniammal (A2). Though P.W.9 would state that on the 10thday of marriage, Mangal Sutra ceremony was held and on that occasion,Uma Maheswari revealed the fact of the demand made by Indraniammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (A2), he was not in a position to say what was the time gap betweenthe date of Mangal Sutra and the date of setting up separateresidence for the couple. It is also his admission during cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge as to whether UmaMaheswari was happy or not after she complained about the demand ofMaruti car, etc. The evidence of P.W.9 seems to be the testimony ofan interested witness, as he has clearly admitted that he is a friendof family of Sathyanarayanan and Geetha Sathyanarayanan (parents ofUma Maheswari). Before ever accepting his evidence, the same must beput to the test of careful scrutiny. 13. It is his evidence that on hearing the news of the death ofUma Maheswari, he (P.W.9) along with Geetha Sathyanarayanan and herhusband Sathyanarayanan and yet another Geetha came in a car toPondicherry and all of them straight away went to Ariankuppam policestation. This particular part of the evidence of P.W.9 is quitecontra to the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12. It is the evidence ofP.W.11 - Sathyanarayanan that on hearing the news of death of UmaMaheswari, P.W.12 - Geetha Sathyanarayanan, their sons P.W.15 -Senthil and P.W.16 - Sridhar, one Andiappan and P.W.9 - Saikrishnaalone went in an Ambassador car to Ariankuppam, whereas P.W.11 -Sathyanarayanan proceeded towards Pondicherry by bus. It is also theevidence P.W.12 that she went in a car to Ariankuppam whereas herhusband P.W.11 - Sathyanarayanan went there by bus. The same willgreatly impair the demeanour of P.W.9 and also the reliability of hisevidence. There is contradiction in the evidence regarding when sucha demand for supply of a Maruti car, 25 sovereigns of gold andRs.50,000/- was made. According to P.W.9's evidence, it was madewithin 10 days after the marriage and the same was revealed by UmaMaheswari at the time Mangal Sutra ceremony was held on the 10th dayof marriage. The marriage of Uma Maheswari with the appellant (A1)took place, according to the evidence, on 25.08.1994. Therefore, the10th day would have fell on 03.09.1994. So, the demand should havebeen made before 03.09.1994 as per the testimony of P.W.9. Theevidence of P.W.11 in this regard is that there was a demand forpayment of Rs.50,000/- and a Maruti car. He has not stated that themother of the appellant demanded 25 sovereigns of gold jewels afterthe marriage. At one place, P.W.11 has stated that the mother of theappellant, namely Indiraniammal (A2), demanded a Maruti car and a sumof Rs.50,000/- from the wife of P.W.11 for constructing a house. Atanother place he has stated that the demand was for giving a scooterto the appellant and a cash of Rs.25,000/- as a condition precedentfor allowing the appellant and Uma Maheswari to set up a separateresidence for themselves when P.W.12 - Geetha Sathyanarayanan went tothe house of Indiraniammal to give Pongal Seer. In this regard,there is a vital contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11.Though P.W.12 - Geetha Sthyanarayanan would say that the mother ofthe appellant, namely Indiraniammal (A2) demanded a Maruti car,Rs.50,000/- cash and 25 sovereigns gold jewels for setting up aseparate residence for the appellant and Uma Maheswari when she hadgone to the house of Indiraniammal, she has not given the date onwhich such a demand was made. She has not even stated whether such ademand was made prior to Mangal Sutra ceremony or subsequent to that.However, she would state that the said demand preceded the Tamilmonth "Aadi" for which she took her daughter to their house atChennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. P.W.12 on the other hand would state that on the 10th day ofmarriage, Mangal Sutra ceremony was held at the instance ofIndiraniammal in the house of P.Ws.11 and 12, even though as percustom, the same would be held at in the residence of the husband. Anew case has been introduced by P.W.12 in her evidence to the effectthat on the date of Mangal Sutra ceremony itself, Uma Maheswari wastaken to Pondicherry and before leaving the house of her parents, UmaMaheswari confided with P.W.12 that a pair jimikies and ear studs ofUma Maheswari had been sold by Indiraniammal and with the help of thefunds raised by the sale of the said jewels, she had fitted an eversilver sink in her house and that Indiraniammal wanted Uma Maheswarito get a sum of Rs.4,000/- for getting the jimiki of Uma Maheswari.The said testimony of P.W.12 does not get corroboration from anyother witness. P.W.12 has gone to the extent of stating that shealong with her husband had made several visits to the residence ofIndiraniammal at Ariankuppam and at times, they peeped through thegap between the doors at the outer entrance of the house at 4.30 a.mand saw Indiraniammal, Uma Maheswari and the appellant sleeping inthe hall in the above said order. She had stated so to show thatIndiraniammal had not allowed privacy for the newly married couple.First of all, it is doubtful whether there was any light to seethrough the gap in the outer doors of the house. Secondly, there isno evidence as to whether there was any light. Thirdly, the said actof peeping through the gap between the doors shall be an affrontagainst privacy and no decent person would have ventured to do it.Fourthly, the said version is not supported by P.W.11. The same willshow that P.W.12 is capable of going to any extent to trade chargesagainst the appellant and his mother because Uma Maheswari is nomore. 15. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the marriageof Uma Maheswari with the appellant took place on 25.08.1994. It wasin the month of Avani. Therefore, the next Aadi came after elevenmonths. According to the evidence of P.W.12, Uma Maheswari had beentaken to her parental house for the first Aadi after marriage, thatmeans eleven months after marriage. It is her evidence that at thatpoint of time, in the presence of the appellant and P.W.9 -Saikrishna, Uma Maheswari made a complaint that her mother-in-lawIndiraniammal demanded a Maruti car, cash and jewels. According tothe evidence of P.W.9, it was on the 10th day after marriage, namely3rd September 1994. It was in the month of Avani, that is within amonth from the date of marriage, Uma Maheswari made such a complaint,according to the testimony of P.W.9, whereas the very same occurrenceis claimed to have taken place after eleven months from the date ofmarriage according to the evidence of P.W.12. The same happened tobe the evidence of P.W.15 - Senthil and P.W.16 - Sridhar. P.W.16would say that the appellant and his mother demanded a Maruti car, 25sovereigns of jewels and Rs.50,000/- cash as a condition for settingup a separate residence for them. But, P.W.15 would say that thesame was demanded for allowing Uma Maheswari to do her advocate jobin Pondicherry. The said vital contradiction has not been taken intoaccount by the trial court while deciding the question of allegedcruelty on the part of the appellant herein. The culmination of theunreliability of P.W.12's evidence is found in her statement that shewas not aware of the fact whether her daughter Uma Maheswari and her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ husband, namely the appellant herein set up a separate residence forthemselves in the first floor portion of the house of Indiraniammaland lived there separately. She would simply state that she heardabout the same. Such is the calibre of P.W.12. In addition to that,after admitting Ex.D1 to be the letter written to her by her daughterUma Maheswari, she went back from the said admission and deposed thatshe was not able to say with certainty as to whether Ex.D1 was theletter written to her by her daughter Uma Maheswari. When she wasconfronted with other letters of Uma Maheswari, she simply evadedstraight answers by saying that she had lost familiarity with thesignature of her daughter due to passage of time. 16. P.W.14 is none other than the mother of P.W.12. She hassimply tried to support P.W.12 regarding her evidence that theypeeped through the gap in the outer door of the house ofIndiraniammal and ascertained that Indiraniammal was not allowingprivacy to Uma Maheswari and her husband, namely the appellantherein. It must be noticed that P.W.12 hereself has not stated thatP.W.14 also had accompanied her when she peeped through the gap inthe outer door of Indiraniammal's house. It was her evidence that onseveral occasions she and her husband went to Ariankuppam on suchoccasions she peeped through the gap between the outer doors.Therefore no importance can be attached to the evidence of P.W.14. 17. Even P.W.12 has not stated anything implicating theappellant for causing cruelty to Uma Maheswari. The entire evidenceof P.W.12 is to the effect that it was Indiraniammal who made thedemand and denied privacy to Uma Maheswari and her husband. At onepoint of time, P.W.12 herself has admitted that the demand made byIndiraniammal for jewels and other things was made without theknowledge of the appellant and that Indiraniammal herself instructedP.W.12 to see that the same did not get into the knowledge of theappellant. However, P.W.12 would also state, at another place in herevidence, that the appellant expressed his displeasure with the non-compliance with the demand made by his mother for Marti car, jewelsand cash. The evidence of P.W.12, besides being an improved andembellished version due to deliberation, contains such an inbuiltcontradiction. Besides stating that she was not able to identify thesignature of Uma Maheswari, P.W.12 has stated in her evidence thatUma Maheswari wrote 2 to 3 letters to her but she destroyed all thoseletters. But, she was not able to say whether the letters weredestroyed before she was examined by the CBI or subsequent to suchexamination. P.W.15 does not say that the appellant insisted uponcompliance with the alleged demand made by his mother. However,P.W.16 would say that the appellant, who came to their house afterAadi month, was often picking up quarrel with his parents (parents ofUma Maheswari) asking when they were going to give the thingsdemanded by Indiraniammal and proclaimed that if they were not given,Uma Maheswari could not live peacefully with him. It should benoticed that almost majority of the prosecution witnesses havepointed out their index fingers against Indiraniammal (A2), themother of the appellant, to have demanded a Maruti car, jewels andcash and ill-treated Uma Maheswari when the said demand was not metwith. However, except P.W.16, no other witness has come forward withan unequivocal statement that the appellant (A1) wanted compliancewith the demand made by his mother and proclaimed that in case of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ non-compliance, Uma Maheswari could not live peacefully with him. Itis the evidence of none of the witnesses that the appellant causedany direct ill-treatment to his wife Uma Maheswari. On the otherhand, there is evidence through P.Ws.11, 12 and 14 to the effect thatUma Maheswari was not provided with proper food and she was treatedby Indiraniammal like a servant. P.Ws.12 and 14 have gone to theextent of stating that Uma Maheswari was allowed to wear only theworn-out sarees and that Indiraniammal, after keeping the new sareesand jewels of Uma Maheswari in a bureau, locked it and kept the keywith her. In the light of the documents produced on the side of theaccused, the said evidence turns out to be unreliable. There are anumber of letters produced as Exs.D1 to D15. Ex.D1 is an inlandletter written by the deceased to the appellant while she was inChennai. Ex.D2 is a letter written by P.W.11-Sathyanarayanan to theappellant and his wife Uma Maheswari. Ex.D4 is a pocket note bookUma Maheswari. Ex.D5 is the document written by the deceased to theappellant to which also a letter written by V.K.Narayanan has beenannexed. Ex.D6 is another letter written by the deceased to herhusband. Ex.D8 is the envelope under which a letter was sent by theappellant to his wife Uma Maheswari. Ex.D9 is a letter dated25.03.1996 written by P.W.16-Sridhar to deceased Uma Maheswari.Ex.D10 is a letter written by Uma Maheswari to the appellant on13.11.1995. Ex.D11 is another letter written by Uma Maheswari to theappellant on 27.11.1995. Ex.D12 is another letter written by thedeceased to the appellant. Ex.D13 is a letter written by P.W.12 toher daughter Uma Maheswari on 17.11.1994. Ex.D14 is a note left bythe deceased to her husband when she had to go to the advocate'soffice with her mother-in-law on receipt of a phone call withoutinforming her husband. Ex.D15 is a letter written by Uma Maheswarito V.K.Narayanan-P.W.13. In none of these letters, there is anycomplaint against the appellant that she was treated with cruelty byhim. In fact all these letters will go to show that the relationshipbetween Uma Maheswari and her husband was so cordial. Neither shenor her husband did have any grievance or ill-will against the other.In fact in many of the letters, she had asked her husband to conveyher regards to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. In almost allthe letters written to her husband, she had expressed her lovetowards her husband by stating that she was sending her kisses. Eventhe letters written by P.W.12 and P.W.16 reveal that there was noproblem between the couple and on the other hand, the said documentswould show that P.W.12, the mother of the deceased was in constanttouch with P.W.13 - V.K.Narayanan, a devotee of Sai Babha ofPuttaparthi and she along with her daughter Uma Maheswari had becomethe devotees of Sai Babha of Puttaparthi and paid several visits toget the blessings of Babha. The letters produced on the side of theprosecution as Ex.P16 to P18 allegedly written by P.W.13 -V.K.Narayanan and the letters produced on the side of the accusedpersons clearly reveal the fact that the accused did not show keeninterest in the worship of Sai Babha and that the deceased had got agrievance about it and that she wished her husband also became adevotee of Sai Babha. In addition to that the deceased had agrievance over her failure to conceive a child. In fact, there isnot even a single letter written by the deceased either to herparents or to anybody else trading charges of ill-treatment andcruelty on the part of her husband, the appellant. On the otherhand, especially in Ex.D15 she had expressed her state of mind over https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her not giving birth to a child. In the same letter she had askedP.W.13 - V.K.Narayanan not to discuss anything with her motherstating that whatever they (meaning herself and her husband) did withgood intention, was found fault with and that moreover her mother(P.W.12) had started teasing her in-laws and the people of herhusband's family. For better appreciation, the particular part ofthe letter is extracted in the very same language."eP';fSk; kk;kpaplk; vd;id gw;wp vija[k; Discuss bra;antz;lhk;/Please eh';fs; ey;yJ bra;a mJ jtwhfnt fw;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ Moreovershe has started teasing about my in laws house people."18. In this background, yet another allegation sought to be madeby P.Ws.11, 12 and 13 become more important. It is the evidence ofP.W.11 that the appellant was impotent and he was acting according tothe dictates of his mother. P.W.13 has stated in his evidence thatthe deceased Uma Maheswari had not enjoyed the pleasure of firstnight, as her husband was found with deficient potentiality and thatsuch a revelation was made to him by her on the second day aftermarriage. It is highly improbable for a bride to have confided witha man within two days after marriage that she was not satisfied inthe first night as her husband was lacking in potentiality. It isquite normal for such a lady to reveal the fact to the female membersof the family rather than a male. The same will go to show that thewitnesses are highly interested and they are prepared to go to anyextent to see that the image of the appellant was tarnished and healong with his mother was convicted.19. Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram, Superintendent of Police (South),Pondicherry, who has deposed as P.W.18 conducted investigation of thecase, examined the witnesses and submitted a final report allegingcommission of offences by the appellant, his mother Indiraniammal andthe appellant's sister Jayanthi, punishable under Sections 304-B r/w34 IPC or in the alternative offences punishable under Section 498-AIPC r/w 34 IPC, 306 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct r/w Section 34 IPC. The said charge-sheet was filed on25.11.1997. However, P.W.12, not satisfied with the same, obtainedan order from this court for CBI investigation. Hence the case wastransferred to the file of CBI, re-registered as RC No.2/S/99/CBI/SCBand investigated by P.W.21, which resulted in the submission of afinal report alleging commission of offences punishable underSections 304-B, 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act r/w 34 IPC on the part of the appellant herein (A1)and his mother Indiraniammal (A2). A consideration of the evidencewill show that a stage-by-stage improvement was made by theinterested witnesses to implicate the appellant, his mother and alsohis sister to show that Uma Maheswari could not have committedsuicide and that she could have been done to death by the appellant,his mother and his sister. But such an attempt ended in failure asthere is clear evidence pointing out the fact that the deceased diedof asphyxia due to hanging and that she committed suicide by hanginginside the room after bolting the door from inside. An attempt wasalso made to show that the deceased would not have reached the hookmeant for suspending the fan to tie the rope and that the death couldnot be a suicide as her feet were found touching the floor. But the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ photographs taken show the availability of a table in the room whichwould have been used by the deceased to reach the point ofsuspension. In addition to that the expert has given opinion underEx.P40 to the effect that it was difficult to assess from thephotographs whether the feet of the deceased were touching the groundor away from the ground. However, the expert added that death couldoccur with the feet of the victim touching the floor, which positionshall be called partial hanging, and that the mode of the death ofUma Maheswari might be suicide. In fact, the court below has arrivedat a conclusion that the death of Uma Maheswari was suicidal.However, since the court below came to the conclusion that theallegation of dowry demand and cruelty demanding dowry soon prior tothe death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, it came to theconclusion that the appellant was also not guilty of the offencespunishable under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section304-B IPC while acquitting Indiraniammal, the mother of theappellant, of all the offences with which she stood charged. 20. The case was originally registered based on the complaint ofP.W.1 marked as Ex.P1. Subsequently, the case was altered based onthe statement of witnesses made before the Executive Magistrate atthe time of inquest. The same is evident from Ex.P3 alterationreport and the evidence of P.W.17. However, one more document hasbeen introduced in the evidence of prosecution as Ex.P19. It hasbeen marked as a letter addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police,Ariankuppam Police Station dated 01.05.1996. The concerned Inspectorof Police has stated that he did not receive any complaint fromGeetha Sathyanarayanan (P.W.12). It is the evidence of P.W.2 thatshe went to the police station in person and gave the complaint at3.00 p.m on 01.05.1996. Her evidence is to the effect that she alonepreferred the complaint. On the other hand, it is obvious fromEx.P19 that the same was signed not only by P.W.12 - GeethaSathyanarayanan but also by her son, namely P.W.15 - Senthil. P.W.15does not speak about his lodging the complaint along with his motherunder Ex.P19. Therefore, the origin of Ex.P19 is also doubtful. Aspointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same shouldalso be taken as an attempt on the part of P.W.12 to have theinvestigation of the case transferred from local police to CBI. Infact a petition was filed before the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.19163of 1998 and such an order of transfer of investigation was alsoobtained.21. So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned,there are two explanations for the term cruelty occurring in the mainclause made punishable as an offence under the section. They are 1)cruelty for any reason and 2) harassment with a view to get propertyor valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand.For better appreciation, Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code isextracted hereunder." 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty. — Whoever, being the husbandor the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects suchwoman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment fora term which may extend to three years and shall also beliable to fine. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Explanation. — For the purpose of this section,"cruelty" means — (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature asis likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or tocause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment iswith a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuablesecurity or is on account of failure by her or any personrelated to her to meet such demand."It shall be sufficient to conclude that explanation (b) is notattracted, as the court below has held that the alleged demand ofdowry either before or after the marriage was not proved and heldboth the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The same has notbeen challenged by way of appeal or revision. Therefore, theapplication of explanation (b) has to be ruled out. What remains tobe considered is the application of explanation (a). According toexplanation (a), to be a punishable offence, the cruelty must be ofsuch nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or tocause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mentalor physical) of the woman.22. There is lack of evidence to show that the conduct of theappellant was of such a nature as it was likely to drive his wife tocommit suicide. None of the witnesses examined on the side of theprosecution has deposed to the effect that the act on the part of theappellant was of such a nature as it was likely to cause grave injuryor danger to the life or limb of his wife. There is also lack ofevidence to show that the act on the part of the appellant wascapable of causing injury to the health (mental or physical) of thedeceased Uma Maheswari. There is no evidence to show that shesuffered injury to her health (physical or mental) for which she hadto take treatment. Of course, it is true that the evidences show thedeath of Uma Maheswari to be suicidal. But the mere fact that shecommitted suicide shall not be enough to convict the appellant for anoffence under Section 498-A IPC unless the nexus between the suicideand the act of the appellant is established. At least it should havebeen proved that there was an act of cruelty on the part of theappellant and that it was likely to drive the deceased to commitsuicide. 23. In this case, there is want of evidence to prove such an actof cruelty on the part of the appellant. When many witnesses for theprosecution are available for implicating the mother of theappellant, namely Indiraniammal for making demands and causingcruelty, still she was acquitted of all the offences with which shestood charged. Compared with the evidence available againstIndiraniammal (A2), the evidence against the appellant (A1) isnegligible. Only two witnesses have deposed to the effect that heexpressed his displeasure over the non-fulfillment of the demands https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made by his mother. None of the witnesses gave evidence in clearterms that the appellant treated Uma Maheswari with cruelty. Thespecific acts of cruelty have not been spoken to by the witnesses.Under such circumstances, the court below seems to have chosen toconvict the appellant herein (A1) for the offence under Section 498-AIPC, as it was not prepared to pronounce a judgment acquitting boththe accused persons of all the charges framed against them. The veryapproach made by the court below will show that it searched for somepoints for convicting at least one of the accused persons under oneof the charges, as it was either afraid of or not prepared foracquitting both the accused in respect of all the charges. Thereasons assigned by the court below are also not sound. 24. The learned trial judge simply relied on the contents foundin documents produced on the side of the accused and marked asExs.D1, D7, D9, D11, D12 and D15, to arrive at a conclusion that theappellant (A1), by his conduct instilled a sense of frustration anddejection in the mind of the deceased Uma Maheswari. Ex.D1 is aletter written by Uma Maheswari to the appellant while she was withher mother. It shows the expectation of a wife from the husband thathe should talk to her over phone and write letters to her. The merefact that he had not written any letter or spoken to her over phonewhile she was in her mother's house alone shall not be enough to cometo the conclusion that the same was done deliberately to make it anact amounting to mental cruelty. A reading of various communicationsbetween the husband and wife as revealed by the defence documents,will show that there was no rift in the relationship between thehusband and wife till the end, as the deceased used to write lettersconveying her wishes and kisses to her husband. Ex.D7 is an inlandletter written by the appellant to his wife Uma Maheswari on02.08.1995 when she was in her mother's house. The contents of theletter would show that he did not prevent her going to Puttaparthi asshe wished and that he informed her of the preparations he had madefor the exhibition. He had also asked her to bring her law books andother notes. Besides asking her to convey his regards to theparents, grandmother and brothers and frients of Uma Maheswari, heseems to have given an advice to her to get rid of evil thoughts andnot to acquire evil habits from others. The exact wordings areextracted hereunder:-"Please be calm and try to have good thoughts anddoing. Don't acquire evil thinkings and habits fromothers that may ruins us. Be good in your thoughts anddoings. TRUTH ALWAYS WINS."The said advice cannot be construed to have the capability ofinstilling a sense of frustration or dejection. In fact within fewdays from the date of receipt of such letter, Uma Maheswari wrote aletter from Puttaparthi which was dated 07.08.1995. In the saidletter, she conveyed her feeling of excitement after having thedarshan of Sai Babha and meeting V.K.Narayanan - P.W.13 calledThatha. The following sentences are also found in the said letter:-"Longing to see you chumpy and charming. Withlove and kisses." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nowhere in the letter she had expressed any displeasure over theadvice tendered by the appellant in Ex.D7. 25. Ex.D9 is a letter dated 25.03.1996 written by P.W.16-Sridharto his sister, namely the deceased Uma Maheswari. In the said letterhe had informed Uma Maheswari that her mother was angry with her.The reason was not found in the letter. However, he had informedthat his mother was taking treatment for blood pressure andspondylitis. When the said letter is considered in the light ofEx.D15, it will show that the deceased Uma Maheswari was not happywith the attitude of her mother and that is why P.W.16 had chosen towrite such a letter to Uma Maheswari informing her that their motherwas angry with her. 26. Ex.D15 is a letter written by Uma Maheswari to P.W.13 -V.K.Narayanan. Following excerpts from the letter are reproduced:-" mtUk; ehDk; 18/09/95 Kjy; 18/10/95 Madras-rpy; j';fpapUe;njhk;/mth; Computer Course bra;jhh;/ eh';fs; m';F j';fpapUe;jnghJ kk;kpvd; kdnehf ele;J bfhz;lhh;/ (khkpahUf;F nky; brhy mk;g[) ehDk; mijbghWj;Jf;bfhs;sKoahky; rw;W Harsh-Mfnt ele;J tpl;nld;/ ,g;nghJtUe;Jfpnwd;/"" v';fSf;F ,d;Dk; FHe;ijtuk; juhjJ vd; kdJf;F rw;WRikahf cs;sJ/ Rthkpapd; fUizfz; vg;nghJ v';fs; kPJ gLnkh/Rthkpaplk; jhd; tuntz;L';fs;/"" vd;dplk; cs;s SPIRIT & THE MIND — By Samuel H.Sanweiss Book-if jhdhfnt vLj;J gof;f Muk;gpj;Js;shh;/tpiutpnyna Rthkp mUshy; mth; ghgh gf;fk; jpUk;gpdhy; kpft[k;Mde;jkilntd;/ ""eP';fSk; kk;kpaplk; vd;id gw;wp vija[k; Discuss bra;antz;lhk;/Please eh';fs; ey;yJ bra;a mJ jtwhfnt fw;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ Moreovershe has started teasing about my in laws house people." The contents of the said letter will clearly show that while theappellant and Uma Maheswari were in Chennai, there was a scufflebetween Uma Maheswari and her mother (P.W.12) as P.W.12 spoke ill ofthe family members of the appellant. It is quite clear that only theactivities and attitude of mother of Uma Maheswari caused misery inthe mind of Uma Maheswari. The said revelation made by Uma Maheswarito P.W.13 could be the reason for P.W.12 showing anger on UmaMaheswari. 27. Ex.D11 is a letter written by Uma Maheswari to the appellanton 26.11.1995. In the said letter, after giving her husbandinstructions to eat well, take sufficient rest and take oil bath, shehad added the following, "forget the past and effortfully try.Success is assured when sincerity is there." The same cannot be takenas the expression of any displeasure over the act of cruelty orharassment on the part of the appellant. It seems there was a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ failure in the attempt made by the appellant either in his professionor in his studies, which prompted Uma Maheswari to tender such anadvice. So, the same cannot provide any incriminatory materialagainst the appellant. 28. Ex.D12 is another letter written by Uma Maheswari to herhusband, namely the appellant. In that letter she revealed the factthat the appellant was hesitant to visit Chennai and hence she askedhim to visit at least Puttaparthi. The cumulative effect of theexpression of the wishes of Uma Maheswari in those letters will showthat the appellant did not show keen devotion to Sai Babha whereasthe deceased Uma Maheswari besides being a devotee of Sai Babha,wanted her husband also to become a devotee of Sai Babha. The lack ofdevotion to Sai Babha shown by the appellant, cannot be said to be anact of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A IPC. Not only UmaMaheswari but also her mother had shown keen interest in Sai Babha ofPuttaparthi and they made frequent visits either to Puttaparthi or toBangalore to have the darshan of Sai Babha. It happened to be UmaMaheswari's longing that her husband should also become a devotee ofSai Babha. 29. When the fact remains thus, the court below has assigned itsown views, which is quite contra to what could be inferred from theevidence, that the conduct of the appellant had driven the deceasedUma Maheswari to find solace with Sai Babha of Puttaparthi. Such afinding is totally untenable. The court below has also cited anobservation made by Justice A.Raman in his Lordship's order dated12.05.1999 made in Crl.O.P.No.19163 of 1998, before recording itsconclusion that the appellant herein was guilty of the offence ofcruelty on a married woman punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Whatwas the purpose sought to be served by extracting the saidobservation, is not clear. There is utter confusion in the reasoningof the court below which reveals the fact that the court below somehow or other, wanted to convict the appellant for an offence underSection 498-A IPC at least by assigning one or the other reason. Theabove said observation was made by Justice A.Raman in order to upholdthe prayer made in the petition seeking transfer of investigationfrom the local police to CBI. The mother of the deceased hadexpressed suspicion over the nature of death of Uma Maheswari. Shehad stated that Uma Maheswari was not a coward or fickle minded tocommit suicide and that she could not have committed suicide. In theinformation furnished by the appellant based on which the case wasoriginally registered by the police, he had stated that he found theroom locked from inside when he returned home and hence he went forwatching TV and only after sometime, he could found that the deceasedwas hanging inside the room. The said situation was commented uponby Hon'ble Justice A.Raman to express suspicion in the conduct of theappellant in support of his conclusion that the investigation of thecase should be entrusted to CBI. The court below has arrived at adefinite conclusion that the death of Uma Maheswari was suicidal.After having arrived at such a conclusion, the court below hasinappropriately relied on the above said observation to support hisconclusion that the appellant committed the offence of crueltypunishable under Section 498-A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that the conviction of the appellant for an offencepunishable under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained in law as itis against the preponderance of evidence, beisdes the failure toprove beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the court belowholding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section498-A is defective, infirm and liable to be set aside by this courtin exercise of its appellate power.31. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment ofthe trial court convicting the appellant/A1 for an offence punishableunder Section 498-A and the order of sentence imposed are set aside.The appellant/A1 is acquitted of all the offences with which he stoodcharged and set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him shallstand cancelled. Fine amount already paid should be refunded.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarasrTo1. The III Additional Sessions Judge Pondicherry, 2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.3. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry.4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.5. The Inspector of Police C.B.I., S.C.B., Chennai6. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras-600 1047. The District Collector, Pondicherry.8. The Director General of Police, Madras.Copy to : The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr.M. Ajmal Khan,Advocate,SR.64810Crl.A.No.1145/2002PKB(CO)EM/9.12.09