T ARUNTPERUNJOTHI Vs. STATE
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 05,2006

T.ARUNTPERUNJOTHI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH S.H.O. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KISHAN KUMAR VS. NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH MEHTA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUTLAL LILADHARBHAI KOTAK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
T K SRIDHAR VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
DONTHARABOINA SADANANDAM VS. STATE REP BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
JAMNA PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
BANSI LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL RAM SAPKAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
JOGENDRA SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KHATKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
DONTHARABOINA SADANANDAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
MUKKAMALA ATCHUTARAMAIAH VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2014-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
Sathish Kumar VS. State of Karnataka [LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN @ RAJU VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJAY PURWAR [LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-211] [REFERRED TO]
JAMADAR OJHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
MINHAJ UDDIN AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
RAMALINGAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-138] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Davamani (the deceased) was the wife of the appellant herein. She admittedly committed suicide on 14-3-1994. They were married on 4-9-1992. The deceased gave birth to a female child at Pondicherry in July 1993. The appellant for one reason or the other did not bring her back from her maternal home for a period of about eight months. She was brought back in February 1994. According to the appellant, the deceased proposed to go back to her mothers house to see her mother which he refused stating that she had come back only a month back.
(2.)It is not in dispute that at the time when the deceased committed suicide neither the appellant nor his mother was present in the house. Somehow or the other the people of the neighbourhood came to know about it. They broke open the door and found the dead body. The deceased committed suicide at about 1 p.m. The mother of the appellant came back at 3.30 p.m.
(3.)It also stands admitted that the family members of the deceased, namely, her mother (PW-7), sister (PW-8), maternal uncle (PW-6), another relative (PW-9), and brother (who was not examined), came to the house and allowed the cremation of the dead body in his village. They took back all the articles which were given to her at the time of or after the marriage. No first information report was lodged by them. The police was informed by the appellant himself whereupon a case under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. The matter was also considered by panchayat. One Rajarajan Veerasamy, Deputy Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, (PW-14), conducted an enquiry. He examined the prosecution witnesses and others. He submitted a report before the Station House Officer, Mettupalayam Police Station on or about 15-3-1994 wherein he is said to have raised some suspicion as regards the death of the said Davamani. In his report, it was stated :
".........Further, their statements also stress the harassment for want of dowry. The Panchayatars statement does not clear the doubts as they are not aware of any facts and they could not confirm that there are no problems between the deceased and her husband. There is an injury on the right hand side of the neck of the deceased and an internal injuries could be traced out only in the post mortem report.

In my opinion, I suspect that there could be harassment for demand of dowry by the in-laws and husband of the deceased, based on the statements recorded in this regard. Hence, in my opinion, this could be a case of dowry death.........."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.