Ravichandran vs State

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 39 of 2001 on the file of the Additional

District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Ariyalur. There were three accused charged u/s 304(B) IPC before the trial Court. A2 & A3, the mother and

sister of A1, respectively were acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that the charge against them has not been proved beyond any reasonable

doubt. The learned trial Judge has convicted A1 u/s 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years RI u/s 304(B) IPC, which necessitated A1

to prefer this appeal.

According to the prosecution, the victim girl, who is none other than the wife of A1, has poured kerosine on her and set fire to her at 7.30 pm

on 27.8.2000, due to the demand of dowry by A1 to A3. On appearance of the accused the learned trial Judge after furnishing the copies to them

u/s 207 Cr.P.C., had framed the charge u/s 304(B) IPC and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked. No material

objects were marked before the trial Court. On the side of the accused neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in.

P.W.1 is the brother of the victim girl, who would state that the marriage between the deceased and A1 took place some 5 years prior to the

date of occurrence and at the time of marriage two sovereigns of gold chain was presented to her and one sovereign of gold ornament was

presented to A1 and that after the marriage the deceased and A1 were residing at Koothanur village with the mother and unmarried sister of A1.

According to P.W.1, whenever A2, the mother of A1, used to visit his house, she used to complain that they have not offered ''Seer'' like others.

For that he undertook to offer ''Seers'' in due course and on the date of occurrence ie., 2 years before at about 9.00 pm he received a phone call

from Koothanur that his sister had committed suicide by pouring kerosine herself and set fire to her and that after visiting Koothanur with his

mother he returned to Padalur and preferred a complain Ex.P.1 with the police.

P.W.2 is the then RDO of Ariyalur, who had conducted inquest on 21.8.2000 at about 11.30 am on the basis of the FIR � Ex.P.2 received

from the Padalur Police Station. He had examined Panchayatars viz., Maruthamuthu, Muthusamy, Nallathambi, Venkatachalam and Sivasamy and

other witnesses viz., Arivazhagan, Dhanalakshmi, Ravichandran, Kandasamy, Ponmudi, Lakshmi & S.Kandasamy and recorded their statements

and had sent the dead body of Valarmathi for postmortem through Police under Ex.P.4-request. Ex.P.5 (series) are the statements recorded by

him from the witnesses during his inquest. Ex.P.6 is the inquest report.

P.W.3 is the doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of Valarmathi. Ex.P.7 is the postmortem report and Ex.P.8 is the chemical

report. The Doctor has opined that due to burn injuries sustained by the deceased in the occurrence, she had breathed her last.

P.W.4 is the another brother of the deceased viz., Arivazhagan. According to him, A1 had demanded TV from him and that he had presented a

TV to A1. According to P.W.4, after the marriage for nearly 5 years A1 was living with the deceased at Koothanur and they were living happily

after their marriage and occasionally they used to quarrel with each other and at that time he had also pacified them. After hearing the news of

suicidal death of his sister, he went to Koothanur and saw his sister''s body lying on the verandah of her house and both A2 & A3 were present in

the house, but they could not give any proper reply for the cause of the death of his sister. Thereafter, he along with P.W.1 went to Padalur Police

Station and preferred Ex.P.1-complaint. He has also identified his signature in Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2. He would further admit that he has also given

statement before the RDO during his inquest.

P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, she had received a letter from her daughter (deceased) and immediately she rushed to

her daughter''s house where her daughter complained that A1 had threatened to strangulate her. After advising his daughter not to quarrel with A1,

she returned to her house at Peruvallur and after receiving a phone call from Koothanur on the date of occurrence she went there and saw her

daughter''s body in charred condition. Thereafter, her sons - P.W.1 & P.W.2 preferred a complaint with police.

P.W.6 would depose that after the occurrence he saw the charred body of the deceased on the street and that he lifted the body and placed on

the verandah of her house at Koothanur.

P.W.7 is a witness in Ex.P.9-observation mahazar. P.W.8 is also an another witness in the observation mahazar. He had identified his signature

in the observation mahazar as Ex.P.10. He would further depose that along with him P.W.7 has also signed in the mahazar as a witness.

P.W.9 is the postmortem constable, who had handedover the body of the deceased to P.W.2 for postmortem. P.W.10 is the FIR constable,

who had handedover the copies of FIR to the Court and RDO. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the FIR in Padalur

Police Station Cr. No. 256 of 2000 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, who had conducted the investigation and has filed the

charge sheet against A1 to A3 u/s 304(B) IPC.

When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused have stated that the witnesses have deposed

falsehood and that without proper investigation a false case has been foisted against them. The first accused has filed a written submissions before

the learned trial Judge. But no witness was examined on the side of the accused. In the written submissions A1 has stated that only due to stomach

ache, head ache and other bodily pains the deceased has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by setting herself by fire. The learned trial

Judge, after going through the evidence, has convicted and sentenced the 1st accused u/s 304(B) IPC to undergo 7 years RI. Hence, this appeal

by A1.

Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the offence u/s 304(B) IPC has been made out against A1 to sustain the conviction

and sentence awarded by the trail Court in S.C. No. 39 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Ariyalur.

POINT: To warrant conviction u/s 304(B) IPC, the two ingredients required under the said section are, soon before the death the victim

should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment either by her husband or by any of the relatives of her husband in connection with any

demand for dowry. So, the important point to be decided in this appeal is whether the victim was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by A1 or

whether the victim was subjected to any demand of dowry prior to her death. Soon after the occurrence, inquest was conducted by P.W.2 (RDO

of Ariyalur). The inquest report is Ex.P.6. RDO in a categorical terms has stated in his inquest report � Ex.P.6 that the death of the victim

Valarmathi was not due to any dowry harassment. One of the panchayatars enquired by P.W.2 during his inquest viz., Maruthamuthu was

examined as P.W.7 before the trial Court. P.W.7 in cross-examination has stated that the deceased Valarmathi was leading her matrimonial life

happily with her husband and his family members. It is seen from Ex.P.6-inquest report that P.W.1 had received back two sovereigns of gold chain

presented by the parents of the deceased at the time of her marriage to A1, to meet the expenses incurred by him in the business conducted by

him. Before the RDO-P.W.2, P.W.1 has stated that at the request of the deceased P.W.1 had purchased a steel bureau at Maharajar Enterprises,

Padalur and his brother had purchased a black and white TV and presented to his sister before the occurrence. But, P.W.1 before the trial Court

would depose that he has not deposed before the Court that he has presented a black & white TV to his sister before the occurrence and that his

brother-P.W.4 had presented a steel bureau to his sister before the occurrence. P.W.1 has not deposed to the fact that there was a demand of

black & white TV and steel bureau by the deceased at the instance of A1 or his mother � A2 before the date of occurrence. P.W.4, the other

brother of the deceased, has also not deposed before the Court that he has presented steel bureau to the deceased before the occurrence. But he

would depose that only TV was presented on the demand of A1. But that was not the case deposed before the RDO either by P.W.1 or by

P.W.4. Further, to show that though P.W.1 & P.W.4 had purchased TV and steel bureau no material was placed before the trial Court. The

accused was also examined by P.W.2 during the inquest. According to A1''s statement before RDO on 27.8.2000 ie., the date of occurrence, he

had his brake-fast in the house and went to VRR Crusher for attending his work and he returned at about 4.00 pm in the evening on the same date

for lunch and both he and his wife (deceased) together took lunch at about 4.00 pm and again he left for night duty and he returned only at about

7.15 pm and only on the way to his house he was informed by one Kumar that his wife had committed suicide by setting herself by fire. This part

of the evidence in Ex.P.6-inquest report of A1 has been corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.3, who had conducted postmortem on

the body of the deceased. The Doctor � P.W.3 has deposed that on desection of the stomach of the deceased, he had found 25 grams of

undigested rice particles. That itself will go to show that soon before the occurrence, according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place

at about 7.30 pm on 27.8.2000, both A1 and his wife (deceased) were cordial and had lunch at 4.00 pm on the same date. P.W.8, a resident of

Koothanur village, has unanimously deposed before the trial Court that both the deceased and A1 were living together happily after their marriage

The learned trial Judge having observed that no case has been made out from Ex.P.6-inquest report of P.W.2 has given a definite finding at the end

of paragraph 26 that the cause of death of the deceased Valarmathi was not due to any demand of dowry, unfortunately had taken a different view

at the end of his judgment that the offence u/s 304(B) IPC has been made out against the 1st accused, has convicted and sentenced A1 under the

above provisions of law, which definitely warrants interference from this Court.

14 (a) The learned Counsel for the appellant relying on 2006 INDLAW SC 431 (Ram Badan Sharma and Surya Kant Sharma v. State of Bihar)

would contend that to warrant conviction u/s 304(B) IPC the prosecution must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the victim soon before her

death was subjected to cruelty or dowry harassment. The exact observation of the Honourbale Apex Court in the above said dictum runs as

follows:

In cases where it is proved that it was neither a natural death nor an accidental death, then the obvious conclusion has to be that it was an unnatural

death either homicial or suicidal. But, even assuming that it is a case of suicide, even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural

circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304(B) IPC is attracted. In Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2001 Indlaw SC 224,

this Court examined the meaning of the words ""soon before her death"". The Court observed that the legislative object in providing such a radiu of

time by employing the words ""soon before her death"" is to emphasize the idea that her death, should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of

such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a close and perceptible nexus between death and the dowry � related harassment or

cruelty inflicted on the deceased

14 (b) The other dictum on which reliance was based by the learned Counsel for the appellant is Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Others Vs.

State of West Bengal, , wherein the ratio decidendi laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, is that if the prosecution has failed to prove that

there is any harassement in connectin with demand of dowry on the victim, the conviction against the victim is liable to be set aside. The exact

observation of the Honourable Apex Court in the said ratio runs as follows:

Alongside insertion of Section 304(B) in IPC, legislature also introduced Section 113B of Evidence Act, which lays down when the question as to

whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such

person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry

death.

But in the case on hand there no iota of evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in

connection with any demand of dowry immediately before her death. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge u/s 304(B) IPC

against A1 to warrant conviction and sentence under the said section of law. Hence, I hold on the point that the conviction and sentence of the

learned trial Judge in S.C. No. 39 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ariyalur, is liable to be set aside.

In fine, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge in S.C. No. 39 of 2001 on the file of the Additional

District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ariyalur, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charge u/s 304(B) IPC levelled against him.

Bail bond shall stand cancelled.