Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) These two appeals are interlinked and have their matrix on a judgment of the Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The conviction was imposed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, and appeal was preferred by the appellants questioning conviction and the sentence imposed. Originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304 B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304B and convicted them for offence under Section 498A IPC.
(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : Appellant-Rajendran, was married to Shanthi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). The other appellants are the parents of Rajendran. On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got married to appellant-Rajendran. Since there was torture at the hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi committed suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 A.M. by setting fire on herself after pouring kerosene. On the complaint of Ganesan (PW-1), the father of the deceased, a case was registered in Crime No. 99 of 1991 for suspicious death by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.9). After examination of witnesses and recovery of material objects, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (PW-11) filed a charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.3.1992 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined, Exs. P1 to P16 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked. The trial court on completion of trial, concluded that all the appellants were guilty of offence under Section 498A IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Same was challenged before the High Court. The appellants in the appeal before the High Court submitted that in the absence of any dying declaration or suicide note or any evidence relating to dowry torture the trial court ought not to have convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted that since the appellants were acquitted of charge punishable under Section 304B IPC, consequentially the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants in respect of other offence. The High Court did not accept this plea. It held that on going through the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 it was clear that there was no offence relating to dowry torture but there are materials to show that deceased was being tortured by the appellants. The High Court also referred to the evidence of independent witness Dhanam (PW 3) who was a neighbour. She had specifically stated about the ill-treatment by the appellants. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants were rightly convicted. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.;