Ranjit vs State

A. Selvam, J.—The conviction and sentence dated 30th day of October 2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 377 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Tack Court No. IV), Poonamallee are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.

The case of the prosecution is that the first accused by name Ranjith is the wife of the deceased by name Geetha. The second accused is the mother of the first accused. The third accused is the brother of the first accused and fourth accused is his wife. After marriage, all the accused have joined together and demanded money and jewels in the form of dowry from the deceased. Since the deceased has not been able to meet out their demands, on 19.3.2005 at about 6 p.m., she committed suicide. After occurrence, brother of the deceased by name Adi Kesavan as de facto complainant has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No. 390 of 2005. The complaint given by the de facto complainant has been marked as Ex. P. 1.

On receipt of Ex. P. 1, the Investigating Officer, viz., P.W. 13 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly, the Doctor by name Rajamani Bheem Rao (P.W. 6) has conducted autopsy and he found the following external and internal injuries:-

"No External or internal Injuries seen on the body except the ligature mark.

- An incomplete oblique ligature mark seen in the front and sides of the neck 22 c.m. long, posteriorly merges with the hair line

- It is situated 8 c.m., from the suprasternal notch 7 c.m. from the chin 11 c.m., from the left mastoid and 1.5 c.m., from the right Mastoid

It is 1.5 to 2 c.m. wide

- The skin was dark dry and parchment like. The underlying soft tissue of the neck pale and glistering and not contused.

- Finger and toe nails bluish

- Peeling of cuticles with many blisters seen on right shoulder

- Marbling seen all over the chest and abdomen Heart - Normal in size. Chambers empty. Cut section flabby

Lungs - cut section congested

Hyoid bone - Intact

Stomach - 50 gms. of partly digested food particles with no specific odour

Liver, Spleen & Kidneys cut section congested

Bladder, Uterus. Empty .. Pelvis .. Intact

On opening of Head: No fractures. Brain. Superficial vessels engorged. Spinal column Intact

Brain .. Edematous"

The Post Mortem Certificate has been marked as Ex. P. 4. After transfer of P.W. 13, the then Investigating Officer, his Successor in Office viz., P.W. 14 has conducted further investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C. No. 8 of 2006.

The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thiruvallur District and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No. 377 of 2006 and subsequently made over to the trial court.

The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant records has framed charges against the accused under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304(B) of the IPC and the same have been read over and explained to them. The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 14 have been examined and Exhibits P. 1 to 19 and M.O. 1 have been marked.

When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.

The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the available evidence on record, has found the first accused guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- with usual default clause. The trial court has acquitted the first accused in respect of the remaining sections of law and also acquitted the remaining accused from the charges. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed at the instance of the first accused as appellant.

The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the first accused is the wife of the deceased Geetha. The second accused is the mother of the first accused. The third accused is the brother of the first accused and the fourth accused is his wife. All the accused have joined together and demanded jewels and money in the form of dowry from the deceased and since the deceased has not been able to meet out the demand made by them, she committed suicide on 19.3.2005.

The entire case of the prosecution is based upon Ex. P. 1, the complaint alleged to have been given by the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant, brother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 1. The maternal uncle of the deceased by name Murugesan has been examined as P.W. 2. The brother-in-law of the deceased by name Gopu has been examined as P.W. 3. The mother of the deceased by name Mariammal has been examined as P.W. 7 and elder sister of the deceased by name Santhi has been examined as P.W. 8. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence given by the witnesses referred to supra, has found the first accused guilty under section 498-A of IPC.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused has contended that in Exhibit P. 1, it has been simply stated that the first accused has attacked the deceased and sent her to her parental home and she reported that the first accused has demanded a two-wheeler. Whereas, in the charge, it has been differently stated that all the accused have demanded money and jewels from the deceased and further P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 have spoken about the alleged demand of dowry. Since in Ex. P. 1, such demand of dowry in the form of money and jewels have not been mentioned, the conviction and sentence passed against the first accused are not factually sustainable and the trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence against the appellant/first accused and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. The maternal uncle of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 2 and one independent witness by name Gopu has been examined as P.W. 3 and further mother and sister of the deceased of the deceased have been examined as P.Ws. 7 and 8 and all of them have consistently spoken about the alleged demand of dowry by the first accused and the trial court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on the side of the prosecution, has rightly invited conviction and sentence under section 498-A of IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not require interference.

For considering the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to meticulously analyze the materials found in the charge. In the charge, it has been simply stated that all the accused have joined together and demanded money and jewels in the form of dowry from the deceased and due to their torture, she committed suicide.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to look into Ex. P. 1, wherein it has been simply stated that the first accused has attacked the deceased and driven out her from matrimonial home and she has come to her parental home, where she reported that the first accused has demanded a two-wheeler. Except the said aspect, in Ex. P. 1, no mention has been made with regard to alleged demand of dowry in the form of money as well as jewels.

It is true that in the instant case, brother, maternal uncle, mother and sister of the deceased have given evidence to the effect that after marriage, consistent demand of dowry has been made by the first accused. Since in Ex. P. 1, it has been simply stated that the first accused has demanded a two wheeler and since in Ex. P. 1, no mention has been made with regard to demand of dowry in the form of money and jewels and since in the charge, it has been specifically mentioned to the effect that all the accused have demanded dowry from the deceased in the form of money and jewels, it is needless to state that P.Ws. 1, 2, 7 and 8 have given exaggerated evidence and further the specific evidence given by P.W. 1 is that after marriage, a tussle has arisen in between the first accused and the deceased and due to that, a compromise has been effected by the maternal uncle of the deceased. In fact, this Court has fully analysed the evidence given by P.W. 2 and his specific evidence is that a dispute has arisen in between the first accused and deceased and he effected compromise. Except the said portion of evidence, P.W. 2 has not spoken about the demand of dowry alleged to have been made by the first accused. Therefore, it is very clear that virtually on the side of the prosecution, no clinching/trustworthy evidence is available so as to invoke Section 498-A of IPC. Since on the side of the prosecution, no evidence is available with regard to Section 498-A of IPC, it is not possible on the part of the Court to punish the appellant/first accused under the said section.

The trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution, by invoking Section 498-A of IPC, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence against him and therefore, the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed.

In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/first accused in S.C. No. 377 of 2006 by the trial court are set aside and he is acquitted. Bail Bond, if any executed by him, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.