BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the first accused who has been convicted in S.C. No. 96 of 2003 on 22.02.2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. II), Thoothukudi for offence under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.; and to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.; both sentences to run concurrently. It is the case of the prosecution that Padmanabhan(A2) and Narayanan (A3) are the brother and father respectively of Balasubramanian (A1) and they belong to goldsmith community and that they are the residents of Nazareth in Thoothukudi District. Balasubramanian was married on 11.04.1999 to Jayameena (the deceased) who was the daughter of Maharajan (P.W.1) and sister of Ponnusamy (P.W.2) and Latha (P.W.3). The family of the bride hail from the adjoining Tirunelveli District and they also belong to goldsmith community. Their's was an arranged marriage. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the marriage, the parents of the deceased gave her 16 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 10,000/- cash. After the wedding, it is alleged that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the father of the deceased and they were ill-treating her. A son was born to the couple. On 04.03.2002, Maharajan (P.W.1) received information that something has happened to his daughter and therefore, he went along with his son Ponnusamy (P.W.2) and daughter Latha (P.W.3) to the house of the accused around 03.00 p.m. and found that his daughter had died. He was informed that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He lodged a complaint (Ex. P1) with the Sub Inspector of Police, Nazerath Police Station alleging that he found injuries on the body of his daughter and that the accused are responsible for his daughter's death. Venkatesan (P.W.12), Sub Inspector of Police, Nazerath Police Station, received the complaint and registered a case in Nazerath Police Station Crime No. 45 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. at 16.30 hours on 04.03.2002 and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex. P16). Since Jayameena had died within seven years of her wedding, the police informed the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (Executive Magistrate) who received a copy of the F.I.R. at around 19.30 hours on 04.03.2002. Mr.Karutharaj (RW.11), Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted inquest over the body of Jayameena at the residence of the accused on 05.03.2002 at around 8.45 a.m. He recorded the statements of P.W.1, RW.2, P.W.3, A1, A2 and A3. These signed statements were marked as Ex.P8, P9, P10, P11, P12 and P13 respectively. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his inquest report (Ex.P15) opined that there are possibilities that Jayameena would have died on account of demand of money by the first accused and therefore, recommended to the police for a thorough investigation to find out if the death was a dowry death and for further action thereon. In other words, it is not the Revenue Divisional Officer's conclusion that the death of Jayameena was a dowry death and it was only his strong suspicion. In any event, his suspicion or opinion or inference would per se have no evidentiary value because the inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the offender. The police continued with the further investigation by despatching the body of Jayameena for postmortem. Dr.Nainar (P.W.8) the police surgeon attached to the Government General Hospital, Thoothukudi, conducted autopsy over the body of Jayameena at 04.00 p.m. on 05.03.2002 and gave the post-mortem report (Ex.P3) Dr. Nainar (P.W.8) in his evidence and in the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P3) had not observed any external injury on the body of Jayameena. The viscera from the stomach, intestine, liver and kidney were sent to the Government Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examination report dated 28.03.2002 (Ex.P4) disclosed that no poison was detected in any of the items. Thereafter, Dr. Nainar (P.W.8) gave the following final opinion. "The deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging." Investigation of the case was conducted by Anthony Samy (P.W. 13) who went on 05.03.2002 at 8.30 a.m. to the house of the accused and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P17). He recovered the saree used by the deceased for hanging, under the cover of mahazar. After receiving the inquest report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, he sent an alteration report (Ex.P18) to the jurisdictional Magistrate altering the offence to one under Section 304-B I.P.C. On 07.03.2006 he arrested the three accused and sent them for being produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Sathankulam, for remand. He recorded the statement of the post-mortem Doctor and collected the post-mortem and viscera reports. He completed the investigation and filed a final report on 13.09.2002 against the three accused for offences under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, who took the same on file in P.R.C. No. 29 of 2002 by taking cognizance of the offences disclosed therein. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was complied with. The case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court II), Thoothukudi in S.C. No. 96 of 2003. The trial Court framed the following two charges against the three accused:

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, marked 18 exhibits and 13 material objects. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances against them. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the State and the accused, the trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 of all charges but convicted A1 for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the first accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Some of the facts which both sides did not dispute are that; A1 and the deceased got married on 11.04.1999; they have a son who was about two years old at the time of the incident; and on 04.03.2002 Jayameena committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved that Jayameena had committed suicide on 04.03.2002 in the residence of the accused. Now the moot question is, is there evidence to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C.?