Peramabalur Police Station v. Perumal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:14.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAMCrl.A.No.20 of 2003State by:Inspector of Police,Peramabalur Police Station,Ariyalur District. ... Appellant/ComplainantVs.1.Perumal2.Packiam ... Respondents/AccusedCriminal Appeal filed against the judgment dated 25.09.2002passed in S.C.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Additional SessionsJudge, Ariyalur and pray that this Court may be pleased to setaside the order of acquittal and convict the accused as charged.For Appellant : Mr.N.R.Elango, Additional Public ProsecutorFor Respondents : Mr.V.IllanchezianJUDGMENTThe respondents herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 inS.C.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Ariyalur, who are acquitted from the charges under Sections498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. Against the said acquittal, the State haspreferred this criminal appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: The accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Perumal and Packiam arethe father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased by nameMalarvizhi. D.W.1-Ravishangar is the son of the accused 1 and 2.The marriage of the deceased Malarvizhi and D.W.1-Ravishangar wasperformed on 12.06.1994 at Rasi Marriage Hall, Perambalur. Theylived happily for a period of one year and the deceased gave birthto a female child also. The first accused demanded money from thedeceased saying that the cash which was given at the time ofmarriage was not sufficient. One year after the marriage, the sonof the accused had gone to abroad and he was staying in Dubai.Once the son of the accused went abroad and returned after threemonths and for that he had spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- as travelexpenses. The accused also demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- andinsisted the deceased to get the money from her father. P.W.1 is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the father of the deceasedand P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased.(ii) P.W.1-Malarvannan went to the house of the accused andinformed them that they were not in a position to pay the amount ofRs.40,000/-. After 25 days i.e., on 19.08.1998 at about 6.00 p.m.P.W.1 was informed by the first accused that the deceased pouredkerosene and set fire herself. P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the houseof the accused and as the deceased was alive at that time with burninjuries, she was taken to the hospital at Perambalur. As it wasadvised by the Doctor to take her to Trichy, the deceased was takento the Government Hospital at Trichy and the Doctor examined herand declared dead. P.W.1 went to Perambalur police station on thenext day i.e., on 20.08.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. and gave acomplaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.9, Head Constable. (iii) P.W.9-Ilangovan was the Head Constable of Perambalurpolice station. On 20.08.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. he received acomplaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in CrimeNo.845 of 1998 for an offence under Section 174 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure and prepared Ex.P.5, First Information Report. (iv) P.W.8-Dharmarajan, the Revenue Divisional Officerreceived a copy of the First Information Report-Ex.P.5 andconducted inquest over the body of the deceased. He examined thewitnesses and also the first accused and recorded their statementsand prepared inquest report Ex.P.6. On 21.08.1998, he sent thefinal report Ex.P.7 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,Perambalur stating that the deceased died due to dowry harassment.(v) After inquest, the body was sent for Post-mortemexamination. P.W.7-Dr.Paramasivam, held autopsy on 20.08.1998 andissued Ex.P.4, Post-mortem certificate. The Doctor P.W.7 opinedthat the deceased died due to burn injuries.(vi) P.W.10-Janakaraj, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,who took up the investigation on the date of occurrence, went tothe scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2-Observation Mahazar andrecovered M.Os.1 to 3 under mahazar Ex.P.3 and also preparedEx.P.8-Rough Sketch. He arrested the accused on 28.08.1998 at 4.00p.m. After completing the investigation, P.W.10 filed a finalreport on 11.11.1998 for the offences under Sections 304(B) and498(A) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against theaccused. But, the Trial Court framed charges against the accusedonly under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) I.P.C.3. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined10 witnesses; marked 8 exhibits and produced three material object. 4. After completion of the examination of witnesses, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to theincriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity. Thehusband of the deceased was also examined as D.W.1 and exhibits D.1to D.10 were marked through him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence bothoral and documentary, acquitted the accused.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe State submitted that the deceased had committed suicide by selfimmolation within seven years from the date of her marriage and asthere was a demand of money as dowry, the presumption under Section113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is to be drawn. But the TrialCourt had acquitted the accused erroneously. The learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor further submitted that even if the offence underSection 304(B) I.P.C. is not made out, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2is clear to the effect that the deceased was harassed by theaccused by making unlawful demand of money and it is the evidenceof P.W.1 that he was also informed by the deceased while she wastaken to the hospital that she was harassed by her mother-in-lawand as such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498(A)I.P.C. are made out.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accusedsubmitted that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to theeffect that there was a demand of dowry and on the other hand,P.W.1 had admitted in the cross-examination that at the time ofmarriage, the accused had not demanded any jewel or cash and thesame has been given to the deceased voluntarily by P.W.1. Thelearned counsel for the appellants/accused further submitted thatthere is no harassment to the deceased in the family of theaccused, but as the mother of the deceased P.W.3 was livingseparately from her husband P.W.2, there was some dispute among thefamily members and P.W.3 used to visit the house of the accused andthat was not appreciated by P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned counsel forthe appellants also submitted that the exhibits marked by thedefence D.1 to D.10 would lead to show that the deceased committedsuicide by self immolation only due to some pressure from herparents' house. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and also perused the evidence andother documents.9. According to the prosecution evidence, after themarriage for a period of one year, the deceased and her husband andother family members were lived together happily and there was noharassment to the deceased. It appears that D.W.1, the husband ofthe deceased had gone abroad and the deceased continued to staywith her in-laws. It is now stated by P.W.1 that the first accusedhad demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/-, which was spent as travelexpenses of D.W.1, who has gone abroad and the deceased washarassed by the accused, demanding money. Except this, no otherallegation is made against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaintgiven by P.W.1 to the police. In Ex.P.1, it is not specificallymentioned that the accused demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- but it isonly stated that the deceased was harassed by her mother-in-law andthe deceased used to come to the house of P.W.1 and he would send https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her back after consoling her. P.W.1 also specifically admitted inthe cross-examination that the accused have not demanded any jewelor cash at the time of marriage. As there was no demand of anydowry at the time of marriage, any subsequent unlawful demandcannot be termed as a demand of dowry. As per Section 2 of DowryProhibition Act, 1961 the definition is as follows:-"2.Definition of "dowry".- In this Act, "dowry"means any property or valuable security given or agreed tobe given either directly or indirectly-(a) by one party to a marriage to the other partyto the marriage:or(b) by the parents of either party to a marriageor by any other person, to either party to the marriage orto any other person;at or before [or any time after the marriage] [inconnection with the marriage of the said parties, but doesnot include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whomthe Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."10. In this case, it is not the case of the prosecutionthat the money was demanded in connection with the marriage of thedeceased and her husband. Therefore, the subsequent demand made oneyear after the marriage even if it is accepted, it can be termed asonly unlawful demand.11. Even the unlawful demand said to have been made by theaccused as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 3 is not so convincing to theCourt, since it was not specifically mentioned in Ex.P.1, thecomplaint given by P.W.1. Further, from the defence exhibits markedviz., the letters written by P.W.3, P.W.3 was often visiting thehouse of the accused to see her daughter. Apart from this, there isno specific evidence in what manner the deceased was harassed orill-treated by the accused.12. The prosecution has not established its case beyondreasonable doubt to attract the ingredients of offences underSections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. The reasons given by the TrialCourt for acquitting the accused are acceptable. This Court doesnot find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment passed bythe Trial Court. Therefore, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrarjrl https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur. 2.The Inspector of Police Peramabalur Police Station, Ariyalur District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc to Mr.V.Illanchezhian, Advocate, Sr.No.68162Crl.A.No.20 of 2003KA {CO}TP/6.1.2010.