CRL A/710/2021 of KARTHIK.V Vs STATE REP BY on 26 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dated 15.12.2021 in S.C.No.133 of 2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri District, convicting them for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and sentencing them as follows: Accused No. Offence under Section Sentence imposed A1 & A2 498-A IPC Each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 304-B IPC Each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the 1st appellant got married to the deceased-Priyanka on 08.06.2017; that at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gifted 25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the victim/deceased and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels to the 1st appellant; that after marriage, the deceased was living with the 1st appellant in a joint family with the parents of the 1st appellant and his elder brother’s family; that after marriage, the appellants demanded more jewels and caused cruelty in connection with the said dowry demand; that a child was born on 23.07.2018; that the parents of the deceased spent money for child birth and also gifted gold jewels weighing one sovereign to the child; that even thereafter, the appellants committed cruelty in various ways in connection with dowry demand; that the parents of the deceased sold a property to give dowry to the appellants; that on 08.12.2018, the deceased called her mother [PW1] and informed that the appellants were demanding more jewels on par with the jewels gifted to the elder daughter-in-law of the 2nd appellant; that the 1st appellant had refused to take the child to hospital and also stated that if the victim took the child to the hospital on her own, she should return with 5 sovereigns of gold jewels; and that unable to bear the humiliation and harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 08.12.2018 at about 8.30 a.m.

(ii) A complaint [Ex.P1] was lodged by PW1 at 3.00p.m. on 08.12.2018, which was registered as an FIR [Ex.P17] in Cr.No.174 of 2018 under Section 174(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW21]. In the complaint, PW1 had referred to the telephonic conversation between her and the deceased on 08.12.2018 at about 7.15 a.m., and about the demand of 5 sovereigns of gold jewels made by both the appellants. The investigation was commenced by the Inspector of Police [PW20]. He had sent the body of the deceased for postmortem and seized the dress materials of the deceased and thereafter handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW22].

(iii) PW22 continued the investigation and requested the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) [PW18] to conduct the inquest. PW18 conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P10]. Thereafter, PW22 examined all the witnesses and filed the final report for the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai.

(iv) On the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.133 of 2019 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri District, for trial. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and in the charges had referred to the various acts of cruelty in connection with the dowry demand said to have been committed by the appellants, and when questioned, the appellants pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-two witnesses, viz., PW1 to PW22 and marked nineteen documents, viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, besides three material objects, viz., M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the appellants were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. On the side of the appellants, one Ruthramani, was examined as DW1 and two documents were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, besides one material object, to prove their defence.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellants/accused guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them, as stated above.

3. (i) Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that though the police officers knew about the occurrence from the hospital authorities and were actively involved in the enquiry even before the FIR was registered on the complaint said to have been given at 3.00 p.m; that there was sufficient time for the witnesses to deliberate and make an allegation of dowry demand in the complaint; and that the FIR was sent to the Court only on 21.03.2019.

(ii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that the RDO had examined all the relatives of the deceased, who were examined by the prosecution and in his report [Ex.P10], found that the deceased committed suicide because of an incident that took place pursuant to a quarrel between the 1st appellant and the deceased on 08.12.2018 as regards taking of the child to the hospital; that the RDO had categorically stated that the deceased had not committed suicide due to dowry demand; that the evidence of the witnesses would reveal that they had made exaggerated versions and several material improvements in their version to bring home the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC; that the accused had rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act by eliciting several favourable answers in the cross- examination of the witnesses; and that therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and prayed for acquittal.

4. (i) Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the parents of the deceased and that of her relatives; that there is evidence to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand; and that merely because the RDO had opined that the deceased did not commit suicide due to dowry harassment, the impugned judgment based on the evidence of the witnesses cannot be faulted.

(ii) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore, took this Court through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that in the light of the cogent evidence given by the witnesses, the impugned judgment ought not to be set aside and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. (i) As stated above, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. PW1 is the mother of the victim; PW2 is the father of the victim; PW3 is the brother of PW1; PW4 is the relative of the victim; PW5 is the junior paternal uncle of PW1; PW6 is another brother of PW1; PW7 is the brother's wife of PW2; PW8 and PW9 are the cousins of the victim; PW10, the eldest daughter-in-law of 2nd appellant, had turned hostile; and PW11, the sister of the 2nd appellant, also turned hostile.

(ii) PW12 is the neighbour, who first saw the deceased hanging; PW13 is working in the Provisions store run by the appellants’ family and stated that he saw the deceased hanging on the date of the occurrence; PW14 is cited as the observation mahazar witness [Ex.P3]; PW15 and PW16 are the doctors who conducted the postmortem and had issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P5]. According to them, the deceased died due to hanging in her room; and PW17 is the doctor who made entries in the accident register [Ex.P7];

(iii) PW18 is the RDO who conducted the inquest and issued the inquest report [Ex.P10]; PW19 is the constable who assisted the investigating officer; PW20 is the investigating officer who conducted a part of the investigation and handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW22]; PW21 is the Sub-Inspector who registered the FIR under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C.; and PW22 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report.

6. As stated above, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the victim who got married to the first appellant on 08.06.2017 was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, and due to the said cruelty, she committed suicide on 08.12.2018 at about 8.30 a.m. Admittedly, the appellants had not directly demanded any dowry from the parents of the deceased, who were examined as PW1 and PW2.

7. The victim is said to have informed about the dowry demand and harassment in connection with the dowry demand to PW1 and PW2. The other relatives of the deceased who were examined as PW3 to PW9 are hearsay witnesses. Most of them deposed that they had no personal knowledge of the demand of dowry and they only came to know from PW1 and PW2, except for few of them, who claim that the deceased informed them about the dowry demand.

8. The allegation as contained in the charge is that the appellants demanded jewels at the time of marriage and hence, PW1 and PW2 had gifted 25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the victim and five sovereigns of gold jewels to the 1st appellant; that a few months later, when the victim visited her parents' house during the month of ‘Aadi’, on the demand made by the appellants, they gave silver plates and other silver articles weighing about one kilogram besides sarees and dress materials for the deceased and the 1st appellant; that during the Diwali festival, they gifted one sovereign of gold jewels; that when the victim was carrying, a baby shower festival was conducted and on demand, four sovereigns of gold jewels were given; that they have sold their property to give dowry to the appellants; that on the day of the occurrence at about 7.15 a.m. the victim called PW1 and told her that the child had to be taken to the hospital; and that the 1st appellant was refusing to do so and demanded five sovereigns of gold jewels.

9. It would be pertinent to mention here that the witnesses in their deposition have not stated about all the above alleged demands stated in the charge. PW1 in her evidence had stated that there was a demand of dowry immediately after the marriage and during ‘Aadi’ festival, on the demand made by the appellants, silver articles weighing one kilogram were given; that they demanded gold jewels; that after the ‘Aadi’ festival, when the victim returned to her matrimonial home, the 1st appellant had assaulted and lifted her by her neck; and that considering the future of the deceased, they did not give any complaint. PW1 also would state about the phone call said to have been made by the deceased on 08.12.2018 at 7.15 a.m. However, she had not stated about the specific demand of five sovereigns of gold jewels said to have been made by the appellants.

10. In the cross-examination, PW1 had admitted certain facts which improbabilise her version with regard to alleged dowry demand. She had stated that the appellants had spent money for the marriage; that even for the baby shower function, PW1 and PW2 had given only Rs.50,000/- and the remaining expenses for the function, which was attended by 500 persons, was spent by the appellants. The relevant portion in the cross- examination is extracted for better appreciation of her evidence. “Cj;j';fiuapy; jpUkzk; vjphpfspd; brytpy; ele;jJ/ vd; kfis tisfhg;gpw;fhf miHj;J te;jnghJ kz;lgj;jpy; itj;J tisfhg;g[ ele;jJ/ vd; kfspd; tisfhg;g[ bryt[fis vjphpfs; jhd; bra;jhu;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ eh';fs; U:/50.000-? bfhLj;njhk;/ mtu;fs; ntW vd;d bra;jhu;fs; vd;gJ bjhpahJ/”

11. PW1 had also admitted that there was no direct demand made to her by the appellants and that she had not disclosed about the fact that the appellants demanded dowry for the deceased to any person. She had not stated about the alleged assault made by the 1st appellant and lifting the deceased by her neck either to the police or to the RDO, as admitted by her in her cross-examination.

12. Above all, though PW1 had referred to some instances of dowry demand, the RDO in his report, Ex. P10, had found that the inquiry revealed that the deceased died due to a quarrel between the 1st appellant and the deceased on 08.12.2018 regarding taking the child to the doctor. In fact, the RDO in his report had stated that the statements of the witnesses, who have also been examined as witnesses by the trial Court, do not suggest that the victim was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand or had complained about any such cruelty to her parents or her relatives, and therefore, categorically found that the deceased did not commit suicide on account of dowry demand.

13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the report of the RDO cannot be the basis to arrive at any conclusion and an independent assessment of the evidence has to be made. But, the fact is that all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution, have made improvements in their depositions before the Court, as could be seen by the admissions made by PW1 and the other witnesses.

14. PW2, the father of the victim, would admit that for the baby shower function, they had contributed only Rs.50,000/-. He also would confirm that the appellants had not made any dowry demand directly to them. PW2 would also admit that at the time of the marriage, the appellants had gifted 12 sovereigns of gold jewels to the deceased, which is now in his possession.

15. PW3 is the brother of PW1. He would confirm in his cross- examination that he came to know of the alleged dowry demand only from PW1. He would also state that neither PW1 nor the deceased had lodged any complaint accusing the appellants of dowry demand at any point of time.

16. Likewise, PW4 is the relative of the deceased and he came to know of the occurrence only through PW1. PW5 is the junior paternal uncle of PW1 and he is also a hearsay witness. PW6 is another brother of PW1. He is also a hearsay witness and has no personal knowledge of any dowry demand. In fact, in the cross-examination, he would state that even at the time of the marriage, no specific demand was made by the appellant and had left it to the discretion of PW1 and PW2 to gift whatever was within their means to the victim.

17. PW7 is related to PW2 and he is another hearsay witness. He confirms that he has no personal knowledge of the demand made by the appellants. PW8 is the cousin sister of the victim and had stated that she had learnt from PW1 about the quarrel between the deceased and the 1st appellant that the 1st appellant was refusing to take the child to the hospital. However, she makes an improvement in her evidence that when the 1st appellant was asked by the deceased to take the child to the hospital, he had humiliated her by asking her as to whether her parents had gifted a car for her to ask him to take the child to the hospital. This is not even stated by PW1, who is actually said to have spoken to the deceased.

18. PW9 is another cousin and is a hearsay witness. In fact, the prosecution also sought to prove the dowry demand through PW10, who is the eldest daughter-in-law of A2, who did not support the case of the prosecution.

19. Thus, from the above evidence, it would be clear that the alleged dowry demand is spoken to by PW1 and PW2 and that the other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. PW1 and PW2 have made several improvements in their deposition which have not been stated in the earlier statements before the RDO. From their own admissions, it could be seen that there was no demand by the appellants at the time of the marriage. They had also admitted that the expenses for marriage and baby shower function were spent by the appellants.

20. Apart, from the improbabilities in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as stated above, most of the allegations that have been made in Court have not been stated before the RDO, as could be seen from the RDO’s report [Ex.P10]. The witnesses had no proper explanation as to why they have not made those allegations in their statement before the RDO. The witnesses have also admitted that the family of the appellants were well-to-do and they owned a car even before the marriage. In fact, it was suggested to the 1st appellant that he was doing independent business and had a huge turnover. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, it is hard to believe that the deceased was subjected to dowry demand as rightly found by the RDO [PW18] in his report.

21. Be that as it may. PW21, the Sub-Inspector who registered the FIR, had admitted in the cross-examination that he received information at about 8.00 a.m. from the hospital about the suicide committed by the deceased. According to the 1st appellant, he gave a complaint narrating the incident at 8.00 a.m. to the police and the police refused to register the FIR. Even if this version of the 1st appellant is disbelieved, PW21, who admitted the receipt of information about the suicide at 8.00 a.m. on 08.12.2018, had no reason to wait for any complaint till 3.00 p.m. Thus, it could be seen that the police were present even before the registration of FIR and the witnesses had sufficient time to deliberate and lodge a complaint at 3.00p.m. and the FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 21.03.2019.

22. It is also pertinent to mention that some of the witnesses, including PW1 and PW2, have stated before the RDO that the deceased was beaten to death and could not have committed suicide, and therefore, the tendency to exaggerate cannot be ruled out by this fact also.

23. As to the cause of the death, it is the specific case of the appellants that on 08.12.2018, there was a wordy quarrel between the 1st appellant and the deceased as regards taking the newborn child to the hospital, and that the first appellant had stated that he would take the child to the hospital on the next day, which was the immediate cause for the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the witnesses also have admitted that the deceased called PW1 and stated that she is taking the child to the hospital and asked PW1 also to come to the hospital. In fact, the RDO, after considering the statements, was also of the view that the deceased was irked by the fact that the 1st appellant refused to take the child to the hospital and therefore, had committed suicide impulsively. On the overall consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the said finding is more probable and in any case has created more than a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution.

24. In fact, the appellants had examined the brother of the deceased as DW1 to substantiate their case that the deceased was upset, with the fact that her brother was imprisoned at Hong Kong as he overstayed his visit and was illegally employed; and that he could not attend her marriage function or other functions held at home. This defence version also appears improbable. In any case, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond doubt, which has not been done so in this case.

25. Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment holding the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, cannot be sustained. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellants.

26. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.133 of 2019, dated 15.12.2021 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ars

SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samalpatti Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Pre-delivery Judgment in CRL A No. 710 of 2021 26-10-2026