Jayabalan and 6 Others vs State, by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station

Rengasamy, J.—This revision arises against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1986 for the offence u/s 498(A) I.P.C. Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 6(2) read with Section 109 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year of A. 1 and A. 2 for the offence u/s 498(A) R.I for four months and also fine of Rs. 50/- from A. 3 to A. 7 till the rising of the court and also fine of Rs. 300/- u/s 498(A). The Revision Petitioners aggrieved of this conviction and sentence have come forward with this revision.

The deceased Vatsala was married to A-1 in the year 1983 and according to P.W. I - her father, though he promised to provide cash of Rs. 5000/- and certain silver articles to his daughter at the time of the marriage, he could not provide them and the first accused and the other accused who are his close relatives were ill-treating his daughter demanding cash and silver articles and this was revealed to him by his daughter. P.W. 1 has further stated that as his daughter was in the family way, he brought her home for confinement and at that time also she was expressing the ill-treatment of her husband, mother-in-law and other accused demanding the articles and the cash and even after the birth of the child the members of the accused family did not come to see the child and therefore he along with P. Ws. 2 to 4 took Vatsala to her husband''s house and also told A-1 that he would provide the cash and the articles within one month. P.W. 3 has deposed that as the deceased Vatsala was his sister-in-law, he had been to her house to see her and all the accused joining together applied a hot iron rod in her body in his presence and he conveyed this to P.W. 1. who says of ill treatment that after hearing the news from P.W. 3, he went to see his daughter about a month prior to her death and his daughter revealed the cruelty applied by the accused on her and that the first accused who returned home at that time beat Vatsala and also himself and therefore he returned back to his house. P. Ws. 2 and 4, who are panchay athdars also have spoken about the panchayat arranged by them for sending Vatsala to her husband''s house. The court below accepted the evidence and has found that the prosecution has established the offences and therefore, dealt with the accused in the manner stated above.

Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners would argue that even assuming that A-1 who is the husband of the victim woman and his mother A-3 were harassing Vatsala for extracting the money and articles, the other accused who one related to A-1 and A-3 would not have ill-treated or harassed Vatsala as they were not in any way benefited by the alleged dowry payable by P.W. 1 and further for the incident of applying the hot iron rod on the victim Vatsala, the evidence of P.W. 3 alone was relied upon by the courts below, but this evidence appears to be so artificial and therefore the conviction of these accused is not sustainable. The death of Vatsala occurred on 12.11.1985 and the post mortem revealed that she died by hanging. It is the case of the accused that she committed suicide because of stomach pain she had continuously for several months. But there is no proof for this ailment of the deceased Vatsala. Even assuming that she had stomach pain, she would not have gone to the extent of committing suicide by hanging, when especially she had a child of ten months old. Therefore it is very clear that she was driven to the extreme end of committing suicide by the cruelty applied on her by the inmates of her house. The evidence also is that A-1, deceased Vatsala and A-3 were living in one portion of the house and A-2 who is the cousin of A-1 and his family members were residing in another portion. Therefore all these accused were not members of the same family, though they are related to each other. From the evidence of P. W. 1, it appears that the deceased Vatsala was complaining to her father about the ill treatment of her husband about the cash of Rs. five thousand and the silver articles which were not given to him. The post mortem also has found a scar mark in the thigh of the deceased and this scar mark must have been due to the application of the hot iron rod to harass the deceased Vatsala. But I doubt the veracity of P.W. 3, who states that in his presence all the accused joined together in catching the deceased Vatsala for applying the hot iron rod. I do not think that all these seven accused were required to catch hold of the poor woman for the purpose of using the hot iron rod on her. The evidence of P.W. 3 is uninspiring to attach any credence, as it appears to be more artificial in nature.

Therefore, even though the deceased might have been subjected to cruelty by applying the hot iron road, I doubt whether all these accused could have joined together, one catching her legs and the other catching her hands and another applying the hot iron rod. Therefore, the participation of the accused No. 4 to 7 in the offence is doubtful to me. Even though, P.W. 1 has stated that on one occasion in his presence A-2 also had beat his daughter Vatsala joining with A-1, as suggested above, A-7 was, in no way, benefited by harassing the victim Vatsala. Therefore the participation of A-2 also is doubtful to me. However, the Act of committing suicide by Vatsala would establish the persecution and harassment on her demanding the cash of Rs. five thousand and the silver articles which were promised by her father and as they were delayed by P.W. 1, the victim who was unable to bear the torture of harassment, had committed suicide. Therefore, the courts below were right in convicting A-1 and A-3 who are son and mother and the conviction and sentence on them has to be upheld. So far as the other accused, revision Petitioners are concerned, as the evidence against them is doubtful, the conviction an sentence on them has to be set aside.

In the result, the conviction and sentence against the revision Petitioners 2, 4 to 7 is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges made against them and the fine paid by them shall be refunded to them. The Revision is allowed in part, in so far as the Revision Petitioners 2, 4 to 7 are concerned.

It is brought to my notice that the sentence on A1 and A2-is remitted, in view of the Government Orders and therefore now they cannot be arrested or detained in custody. After the conviction by the trial court on 8.9.1988, G.O. Ms. No. 180 dt. 28.1.1989 was passed remitting six months'' imprisonment to certain categories of the convicts and the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that these revision Petitioners are entitled to the benefits of this Government Order. In view of this Government Order the sentence on the third revision Petitioner was completely remitted. Again G.O. Ms. No. 781 dt. 11.4.1990 was passed remitting another six months of sentence and under this Government Order the entire sentence on the first revision Petitioner is remitted. Therefore, as the sentence on these revision Petitioners is now completely remitted, they cannot be arrested or detained. Subject to this direction that they shall not be arrested and detained, the Revision by the Petitioners 1 and 3 is dismissed.