Madras High Court
Anbarrasu @ Stanley Jones Anbarasu vs State Rep By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 24.01.2025
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2016
1.Anbarrasu @ Stanley Jones Anbarasu
@ Stanley David Anbarasu
2.Asir David
3.Kasthuri
... Appellants
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.204 of 2000)
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeals has been filed under Section 374 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating of the judgment
Page 1 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2016
dated 27.05.2016 made in S.C.No.194 of 2002 on the file of Mahila Fast
Track Court, Nagercoil by which the appellants/A1 to A3 who were
convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default
to undergo 4 months of Rigorous Imprisonment and the first appellant was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for
the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC and fine of Rs.25,000/- in default
to undergo 9 months of rigorous imprisonment and the appellant Nos.2 and
3/A2 & A3 were convicted under Section 304(B) r/w 114 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each in default to undergo 9 months of rigorous imprisonment
and the appellant Nos.1 to 3 were convicted and sentenced to undergo 2
years of Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months of
simple imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently.
Page 2 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2016
For appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated
27.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil, in S.C.No.194 of 2002, wherein the appellants were convicted as
follows:
Sl.No. Rank of the Offences Under Punishment
accused Section
1 A1 to A3 498(A) of IPC To undergo three
years of Simple
Imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-
each in default to
undergo 4 months
of rigorous
imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
2 A1 304(B) of IPC To undergo ten
years of Rigorous
imprisonment and
to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each
in default to
undergo 9 months
of rigorous
imprisonment
3 A2 and A3 304(B) r/w 114 of To undergo ten
IPC years of Rigorous
imprisonment and
to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each
in default to
undergo 9 months
of rigorous
imprisonment
4 A1 to A3 4 of Dowry To undergo two
Prohibition Act, years of Rigorous
imprisonment and
to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each
in default to
undergo 3 months
of simple
imprisonment
During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant had died.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
2.The case of the prosecution runs thus:
The first appellant herein married P.W.1's daughter, namely,
Christilda Jane, the deceased, on 26.01.1994 in Kaliyankadu Church as per
the Christian rituals. During their wedlock, a male child was born on
28.03.1995. On 13.05.1996 A1's younger brother got married to a girl from
a wealthy family and therefore the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by
these appellants for not bringing more dowry. Therefore, the deceased
preferred a complaint on 20.07.1999 to the All Women Police Station,
Nagercoil. The said complaint was closed on an undertaking that A1 and the
deceased would live in a separate house. Subsequently, A1 and the deceased
along with the child stayed at the rental house of P.W.5. Even after that the
harassment demanding dowry continued and she was unable to bear the
torture, hence, the deceased self immolated herself with her child in the
rental house. The neighbours and the owner of the house broke open the
door and informed to the fire service and recovered the body. Thereafter,
father of the deceased gave a complaint to the jurisdictional police, who
registered a case, conducted the investigation and arrested the accused. They
also obtained the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, examined a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
number of witnesses and also recovered a letter written by the deceased to
the family of P.W.1 relating to the harassment meted out to her in the
matrimonial house. They also sent the letter for the Hand writing expert's
opinion and obtained the positive report.
3.The first investigating officer, namely, P.W.27 conducted the
investigation by altering the offence under Section 302 to 304 B of IPC and
the same was continued by P.W.28 another Investigating Officer, a DSP and
he filed the final report. The final report was filed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, for the offence under Section 304(B)
of IPC and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2002. After
furnishing copies of records to the appellants under Section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate,No.II,
Nagercoil, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section
209(A) of Cr.P.C. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.194 of 2002 by the
Mahila Sessions Fast Track Court, Nagercoil. The learned Judge framed
necessary charges, questioned the appellant under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
4.The Prosecution examined 28 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.28 and
marked Exhibits P.1 to P.39. The accused/appellants were questioned under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and they simply denied the
incriminating portions. They neither examined any witness nor marked any
document on their side.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court,
Nagercoil, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
both sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants as stated
supra. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed by the appellants.
6.The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would submit that
the entire case rests on the interested testimony of the relatives of the
deceased, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 and previous complaint Ex.P12. To
disprove the charge under Section 304(b) of the IPC, reliance was placed on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2081,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
2008 16 SCC 512, 2008 1 SCC 202, 2006 1 SCC 463, and 2004 7 SCC 724.
He would submit that 5 elements are to be established by the prosecution to
sustain the conviction under Section 304 of IPC., and they are as follows:
(i)The death of a woman should be caused by burns
or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance
(ii)Such a death should have occurred within seven
years of her marriage
(iii)She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry and
(v)Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death.
6.1.According to the learned Senior counsel, except the first two
conditions, the remaining material ingredients were not established by the
prosecution in this case. The Revenue Divisional Officer specifically found
that there was no dowry harassment and the same was not properly
considered by the learned trial Judge. Ex.P12 the alleged material document
does not form part of the final report, and the same was produced much later
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
on 08.05.2002, ie., after the filing of the final report, and hence, it lacks
genuineness. The document is a concocted one, and hence, the same is liable
to be rejected. P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the family members and relatives of the
deceased. They have not furnished any explanation as to why they have not
disclosed the demand of dowry during the inquiry of the Revenue
Divisional Officer. Hence, their evidence is liable to be rejected. Apart from
that, the house owner of the deceased specifically deposed that both were
living peacefully in the house. Therefore, the demand of dowry proximate
to time of the death to prove a live link as required under Section 304(b) of
the IPC is not established. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that
after the alleged complaint dated 20.07.1999, the first appellant and the
deceased had resided in the rental house as tenants. A3 was not residing
with them. Therefore, the allegation that she also harassed the deceased is
not correct. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel seeks acquittal of A3.
6.2. He further submitted that the material letter produced by the
prosecution did not whisper about dowry harassment. The letter disclosed
only the harassment made by husband/A1, and there was no dowry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
harassment. Except Ex.P12, no other documents are available to prove the
dowry harassment immediately before the death. Hence, he seeks to set
aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and acquit the appellant
from the charged offences.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on
instructions, upon perusal of the records, would submit that the submission
of the learned senior counsel that Ex.P12 does not form part of the final
report is factually not correct. The learned Government Advocate produced
the CD file, and he specifically stated that in the CD file and the served
copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, the exhibit was shown as Document No.
12. The copy was marked along with the complaint of the deceased's
withdrawal letter and the docket of closing entry of the police officers. To
prove the above complaint, the corresponding police official was also
examined.
7.1.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
submitted that Ex.P12 is genuine, and the same is not fabricated as argued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
by the learned senior counsel. In the said document, deceased has clearly
stated about the demand of dowry made by the appellants herein.
7.2.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would also
submit that in the case of dowry death, the relative is the competent witness,
and the non-examination of the independent witness is not material in the
case of bride burning. For which he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2014 4 SCC 129. Therefore, he seeks
confirmation of the conviction and sentence, and also reiterated the
reasoning of the learned trial Judge.
7.3. The learned Government Advocate also requested this Court
to consider the detailed written submission filed before the Court below.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
them.
9.Now the question in this case is whether the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellants by the Court below, is in accordance
with law?
10. Before going to the merit of the case, this court culled section
304(B) of IPC and Section 113 of Evidence Act and corresponding principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the dowry death.
“304-B.Dowry death. 113-B.Presumption as to dowry death.
(1) Where the death of a woman is When the question is whether a person
caused by any burns or bodily injury or has committed the dowry death of a woman
occurs otherwise than under normal and it is shown that soon before her death
circumstances within seven years of her such woman had been subjected by such
marriage and it is shown that soon before her person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
death she was subjected to cruelty or connection with, any demand for dowry, the
harassment by her husband or any relative of Court shall presume that such person had
her husband for, or in connection with, any caused the dowry death.
demand for dowry, such death shall be called Explanation.—For the purposes of this
‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative section, ‘dowry death’ shall have the same
shall be deemed to have caused her death. meaning as in Section 304-B of the Penal
Explanation.—For the purpose of this Code, 1860.”
sub-section, ‘dowry’ shall have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
11. The Narrow interpretation given to the meaning of “dowry” in
Hon'ble Two Judges Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of
“Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 9 SCC 721 and in
the case of Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 684
were overruled in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in
(2015) 6 SCC 477 and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
Appasaheb v. State of Vipin Jaiswal v. State Rajinder Singh v.
Maharashtra, (2007) 9 of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684 State of Punjab, (2015) 6
SCC 721 SCC 477
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
1. In view of the aforesaid In our view, both the trial Given that the statute with
definition of the word “dowry” court and the High Court which we are dealing must be
any property or valuable failed to appreciate that the given a fair, pragmatic, and
security should be given or demand, if at all made by the common sense interpretation
agreed to be given either appellant on the deceased for so as to fulfil the object sought
directly or indirectly at or purchasing a computer to start to be achieved by Parliament,
before or any time after the a business six months after the we feel that the judgment
marriage and in connection marriage, was not in in Appasaheb
with the marriage of the said connection with the marriage case [Appasaheb v. State of
parties. Therefore, the giving and was not really a “dowry Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC
or taking of property or demand” within the meaning 721(2007) 9 SCC 721 : (2007)
valuable security must have of Section 2 of the Dowry 3 SCC (Cri) 468] followed by
some connection with the Prohibition Act, 1961. the judgment of Vipin
marriage of the parties and a Jaiswal [Vipin Jaiswal v. State
correlation between the giving of A.P., (2013) 3 SCC 684 :
or taking of property or (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 15] do not
valuable security with the state the law correctly. We,
marriage of the parties is therefore, declare that any
essential. Being a penal money or property or valuable
provision it has to be strictly security demanded by any of
construed. Dowry is a fairly the persons mentioned in
well-known social custom or Section 2 of the Dowry
practice in India. Prohibition Act, at or before or
A demand for money on at any time after the marriage
account of some financial which is reasonably connected
stringency or for meeting some to the death of a married
urgent domestic expenses or woman, would necessarily be
for purchasing manure cannot in connection with or in
be termed as a demand for relation to the marriage unless,
dowry as the said word is the facts of a given case
normally understood. The clearly and unequivocally
evidence adduced by the point otherwise.
prosecution does not,
therefore, show that any
demand for “dowry” as
defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act was
made by the appellants as what
was allegedly asked for was
some money for meeting
domestic expenses and for
purchasing manure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
12. The interpretation to the word “Soon before her death” given by
the Hon'ble Two Judges of Supreme Court in Dinesh v. State of Haryana
reported in (2014) 12 SCC 532 that “It can be said that the term “soon
before” is synonymous with the term “immediately before” is overruled by
the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477 and the same was
reaffirmed by the latest three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2021) 6 SCC 108
and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:
Dinesh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 15.It can be said that the term “soon before” is
532 synonymous with the term “immediately
before”
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 Dinesh v. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC
SCC 477 532, in which the law was stated thus : (SCC
p. 537, para 15)
“. It can be said that the term ‘soon before’ is
synonymous with the term ‘immediately
before’.
We hasten to add that this is not a correct
reflection of the law. “Soon before” is not
synonymous with “immediately before”.
Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 11. “soon before” cannot be interpreted to
SCC 108 mean “immediately before”, rather the
prosecution has to show that there existed a
“proximate and live link” between the cruelty
and the consequential death of the victim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 15. . “Soon before” is a relative term which is
207 required to be considered under specific
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not
synonymous with the term “immediately before” and
is opposite of the expression “soon after” as used
and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the
Evidence Act. These words would imply that the
interval should not be too long between the time of
making the statement and the death. It contemplates
the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to
be understood and determined under the peculiar
circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry
deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of
cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
restricted to a particular instance but normally refer
to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread
over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or
demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it
shall be deemed to be “soon before death” if any
other intervening circumstance showing the non-
existence of such treatment is not brought on record,
before such alleged treatment and the date of death.
It does not, however, mean that such time can be
stretched to any period. Proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the consequential death is required to
be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry,
cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and
the date of death should not be too remote in time
which, under the circumstances, be treated as having
become stale enough.
Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide
to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct
relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with
the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier
in time not too late and not too stale before the date
of death of the woman.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
12.1. The Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the
case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477
has also elaborately considered the dowry prohibition Act and 304(B) of
IPC and gave the meaning of the word “dowry” and necessary ingredients to
consitute the offence under section 304(B) of IPC which reads as follows:
8. A perusal of Section 2 shows that 9. The ingredients of the offence under
this definition can be broken into six Section 304-B IPC have been stated and
distinct parts: restated in many judgments. There are four
such ingredients and they are said to be:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
(1) Dowry must first consist of any (a) death of a woman must have been
property or valuable security— the word “any” caused by any burns or bodily injury or her
is a word of width and would, therefore, include death must have occurred otherwise than
within it property and valuable security of any
under normal circumstances;
kind whatsoever.
(2) Such property or security can be given (b) such death must have occurred
or even agreed to be given. The actual giving of within seven years of her marriage;
such property or security is, therefore, not (c) soon before her death, she must
necessary. have been subjected to cruelty or
(3) Such property or security can be given harassment by her husband or any relative
or agreed to be given either directly or of her husband; and
indirectly. (d) such cruelty or harassment must be
(4) Such giving or agreeing to give can in connection with the demand for dowry.
again be not only by one party to a marriage to
the other but also by the parents of either party
or by any other person to either party to the
marriage or to any other person. It will be
noticed that this clause again widens the reach
of the Act insofar as those guilty of committing
the offence of giving or receiving dowry is
concerned.
(5) Such giving or agreeing to give can be
at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time
after the marriage. Thus, it can be many years
after a marriage is solemnised.
(6) Such giving or receiving must be in
connection with the marriage of the parties.
Obviously, the expression “in connection with”
would in the context of the social evil sought to
be tackled by the Dowry Prohibition Act mean
“in relation with” or “relating to”.
13. According to the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various decision to sustain the conviction under Section 304(B) of IPC, the
following essential elements are to be established:
(i)The death of a woman should be caused by burns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance
(ii)Such a death should have occurred within seven
years of her marriage
(iii)She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry and
(v)Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death.
13.1. In this case, according to the learned Senior Counsel the
requirements iii, iv, v were not established and no material adduced. The
considered opinion of this court is that the said argument of learned Senior
Counsel is misconceived. P.W.1 to P.W.4 clearly deposed about the dowry
harrasment and prosecution also marked number of documents to prove the
dowry demand.
14. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.2 is sister of the
deceased, P.W.3 is close relative of deceased. P.W.4 is an independent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
person aged about 76 years. P.W.1 to P.W.3 testified to some incidents of
demand of dowry within their knowledge. They specifically deposed that
before marriage there was a dowry demand i.e. 25 sovereigns of gold jewels
and Rs.50,000/- cash. At the time of the engagement, 50,000/- and 1
sovereign of gold jewels were given and remaining jewels were given on the
date of the marriage on 26.01.1994 and male child was born on 28.03.1996.
On 13.05.1996, A1's brother’s marriage was performed. In the said
marriage A1's brother was given huge dowry in the form of jewels and land.
Thereafter the deceased was subjected to harrasment to obtain same amount
of jewels and land, by A1 to A3. They had also severely beaten the deceased
and hence she left the matrimonial home with the child and returned to the
matrimonial home at the intervention of the Bishop. They also demanded six
sovereigns of gold jewels and 12,000/- for the child as a dowry. They also
provided the same. Since deceased's father was an evangelist, he was
unable to meet out the dowry demand. On 04.10.1998, information had been
received about the serious health condition of the deceased, that the
deceased was admitted in the hospital and deceased informed about the
forcible pouring of kerosine in the mouth of the deceased and hence she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
became unconscious and admitted in the hospital and took treatment. Police
complaint was given and closed with the advice to resume the matrimonial
life peacefully. Again the deceased was harrassed continuously and hence
the deceased made the complaint on 20.07.1999 with serious allegation of
dowry demand and the said complaint was marked as Ex.P.12 and in the
said complaint all the above events have been narrated by the deceased
herself seeking to take action against the appellants and for better
appreciation, the contents of Ex.P.12 is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
14.1. The evidence of the family members about the demand of
dowry and the harrasment meted out to the deceased in furtherance of the
demand of dowry are cogent, clear and without any infirmities and hence
this court has no reason to disbelieve their testimony. They are the best
persons to speak about the harrasment caused to the deceased. Apart from
that, in Ex.P12 deceased herself clearly narrated what all happened to her.
Therefore this court finds no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.
4 and the same gains support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2015) 2
SCC 252
9. It must be remembered that cruelty and harassment on a
married woman and demand of dowry are generally committed
within the four walls of residential houses and in secrecy,
thereby making it difficult to get direct evidence. That is why the
legislature by introducing Section 113-B in the Evidence Act
tried to strengthen the prosecution case by enabling the court to
raise the presumption if certain basic facts are established and
that death has taken place within seven years of marriage.
Considering the scope of Section 304-B IPC and presumption
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, due weightage is to be
given to the evidence of the father, brother, sister and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
relatives of the deceased with regard to the case put forth
relating to demand of dowry.
14.2. From Ex.P.12 it is clear that the deceased tolerated all the
torments to a certain level and the appellants continuously demanded dowry.
Therefore, Ex.P12 and the evidence of the family members of the deceased
clearly show the live link between the harrassment and her death and also
show the proximity of harassment to death. Proximate time between the
facts of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and death would
depend upon the circumstance of each case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
in the following cases:
In the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633
It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and
circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that
particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept
“soon before her death”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
In the case of V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand,
reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588
“Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon
circumstance of each case and no straitjacket formula can be
laid down as to what would constitute a period “soon before
the occurrence”. There must be in existence a proximate live
link between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand
of dowry and the death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb
mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence.
In the case of Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 108
11. The next important ingredient which needs to be
established is the existence of dowry demand “soon before her
death”. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that,
“soon before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately
before”, rather the prosecution has to show that there existed a
“proximate and live link” between the cruelty and the
consequential death of the victim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
14.3. Matrimonial tolerance on the part of the deceased to
maintain the matrimonial peace for the welfare of the child and to maintain
the good relationship cannot be taken in the negative terms so as to say that
there was no live link between the cruelty and consequential death of victim
which had been emphasized by the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of Supreme
Court in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC
207:
“Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an
accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or
harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to
have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before
the date of death of the woman.”
14.4. In the complaint dated 20.07.1999 marked as Ex.P.12 there
is categorical narration of harrasment meted out to the deceased in
connection with the dowry demand and also the evidence of the family
members of the deceased, are sufficient to hold that deceased was subjected
to the harassment in connection with dowry demand and hence the
presumption under section 113 B of the Evidence Act would operate against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
the appellants as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher
Singh v. State of Haryana reported in [(2015) 3 SCC 724:
“… We are aware that the word ‘soon’ finds place in Section 304-
B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or
months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand
for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but
should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B
or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these
concomitants is established or shown or proved by the
prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial
presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of
the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof
upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his
guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.”
15. In this case, no evidence was adduced on the side of the
appellant to rebut the said statutory presumption and also no circumstance
was either established by the appellant or brought out by the appellant from
the evidence of the prosecution, to rebut the said presumption.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
16. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant raises
suspicion relating to the genuineness of the complaint dated 20.07.1999.
This Court perused Ex.P.12. Ex.P.12 is entire CD file, containing complaint
dated 20.07.1999, receipt given by the police officer in CSR No. 163/99,
and closure report. The author of the said Ex.P.12 was examined as P.W.10.
P.W.10 clearly deposed about the receipt of the complaint dated 20.07.1999
and enquiry conducted on the basis of the said complaint by registering the
said complaint in CSR No. 163/99 and closure of the said complaint. She
marked the said entire original file. The Investigating Agency also collected
the said document and produced before the Court. The same forms part of
the final report. Original also was marked. Therefore, it cannot be presumed
that the same was concocted and hence this court is not inclined to accept
the argument of the Senior Counsel that the contents of the Ex.P.12 are to
be looked with suspicion. Initially, accused disputed the genuineness of the
complaint dated 20.07.1999 and inland letters sent by the deceased. All
were sent to the lab. The expert opinion confirmed the signature of the
deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
17. In Ex.P3, the deceased narrated the harrasment she had
undergone in the matrimonial home. In Ex.P2, the deceased specifically
requested her parents to inform to the police officers and the material
contents are as follows:
“mk;kh fle;j 23-12-k; Njjpad;W jpBnud;W vd;Dila
Chain NghLtjw;F NjLk; NghJ mijf; fhztpy;iy.
mJ vq;F Nghapw;nwd;W njhpatpy;iy. Vw;fdNt ehd;
mq;F tUk; NghJ ePq;fs; ,th;fSf;F (Mr.Anbu) tpw;F
Nghl;l Chain ,y;iy. ehd; Kd;Ng nrhd;Ndd;. vd;id
xd;Wk; ,y;yhky; Mf;FNtd; vd;W Mr.Anbutpw;F vq;fs;
khkh> khkpahUk; $Wfpwhh;fs; vd;W. ,g;gb xd;W xd;wha;
tUtJ ey;yJ my;y. NkYk; Employment ehd; ,q;F
tUk; NghJ ,Ue;jJ. ,g;NghJ fhztpy;iy. ehd;
Nfl;ljw;F gjpy; xd;Wk; $wtpy;iy. jpUk;gf; Nfl;lhy;
mbg;gJ Nghy; tUfpwhh;fs. Nfhgk; mjpfk;. vdNt> ePq;fs;
policeaplk; tpraj;ijf; $wp nkJthf Rk;kh rounds
tUtJ Nghy; te;J tpraj;ij mwpe;J Nfl;fl;Lk;. Chain
vy;yhtw;iwAk; locker y; itf;f itg;Nghk;. ePq;fs;
mk;kh> mg;gh cq;fs; nghWg;gpy; ,Uf;fl;Lk;. ehd;F fhg;Gk;
xU Chain k; $l ehd; fOj;jpNyNa vg;NghJk; Nghl;Lf;
nfhs;fpNwd;. police aplk; vf;fhuzk; nfhz;Lk; ehd;
letter vOjpajhf ,q;F te;J $wf;$lhJ vd;W $wTk;
ghh;j;J tu $wpdhh;fs; vd;W $wl;Lk;.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
18. From the above contents of the letter it is clear that there was a
continuing harrasment relating to the dowry. P.W.1 deposed about the
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and gold chain and ring at the time of the betrothal
and at the time of the marriage 40 sovereigns. Further, after some demand of
dowry they gave further six sovereigns of gold jewel and Rs.12,000/-. They
also demanded immovable property, as the second daughter-in-law of the
second appellant had brought from her house. P.W.1 also deposed about the
earlier occurrence of attempt to murder on the account of the demand of
dowry. Finally, the complaint of dowry harassment was preferred on
20.07.1999, and the death happened on 04.02.2000. The said evidence of
P.W.1, mother of the deceased corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 sister
of the deceased and P.W.3 nephew of the deceased. They clearly reaffirmed
their stand in the cross examination relating to the demand of dowry also.
P.W.4/Independent person of the village clearly deposed about the demand
of dowry made by the appellants and also about the attempt to murder the
deceased earlier to the complaint made on 20.07.1999. Their evidence are
clear, concrete and cogent about the demand of dowry and this Court finds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
no reason to disbelieve their version and doubt over their trustworthiness.
19. That apart in the complaint dated 20.07.1999 the above all
incidents have been disclosed by the deceased and finally she has helplessly
pleaded that her family was not in a position to meet out the demand of
dowry in the following words:
“vjphpfs; Nfl;Fk; mstpw;F nrhj;Njh
gzNkh eifNah nfhLf;Fk; msT trjpAk; vq;fs;
tPl;lhhplk; ,y;iy.
vdNt fdk; khpahijf;Fhpa Ma;thsh;
mth;fs; ,Jfwpj;J tprhhpj;J rl;lg;gb eltbf;if
vLf;f nkj;j gzptd;Gld; Ntz;LfpNwd;.”
20. Therefore, the prosecution has shown circumstances and
evidence to presume the continuous dowry demand made by the appellants
which has driven the deceased to self immolate herself along with her child.
The deceased not only suffered a lot at the hands of the appellants and also
undergone untold pain and committed suicide by setting herself on fire
using kerosene.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
21. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the said
harassment continued to no end and it is not reasonable on the part of this
Court to expect the prosecution to provide material evidence to prove the
demand of dowry till the date of the death of the deceased. When the
complaint dated 20.09.1999 clearly disclosed the demand of dowry, the
ingredients under Section 304(b) of IPC were clearly proven. P.W.1 to P.W.5
also clearly deposed about the demand of dowry. It is true that the landlord
of the deceased deposed that they were living peacefully in their house. He
could not have had knowledge about the harassment meted out by the
deceased within the four walls. To maintain good relationship with the
landlord, the deceased would not have disclosed about the harassment
meted out to her by the accused inside the four walls. It is true that the
Revenue Divisional Officer gave a finding that there was no dowry demand,
but before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the complaint/Ex.P12, and other
documents were not placed. Apart from that, he categorically admitted in the
cross-examination that he did not make any inquiry about the demand for
dowry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
22. The submission of the learned Senior counsel is that in the
report of the Revenue Divisional Officer there was no mention of demand of
dowry. The said plea can not be accepted. Revenue Divisional Officer's
inquiry is a piece of material, like an inquest. It is a settled principle that the
averment in the inquest report is not a material circumstance to disbelieve
the evidence of the witnesses. Likewise in this case also RDO's report will
not affect the credibility of witnesses. When the Ex.P12 is proved in
accordance with law, the demand of dowry is clearly established.
23. Appellants are Christians and A1 married the daughter of an
evangelist. “Tolerance is the life line of every religion”. Christianity
preaches the following:
And the LORD GOD said, “It is not good that man should be
alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband.
He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from
the LORD.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church
and gave Himself up for it, That He might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word. That He might present
it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies;
he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his
own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does
the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of
His bones. For this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one
flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and
the church. Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular so
love his own wife as himself and let the wife see that she
respects her husband.
Likewise you husbands, dwell with them with understanding,
giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be
hindered.
24. According to the above version of the Bible, Jesus created
wife since man cannot live alone and obligates certain duties upon the
husbands to protect the welfare of the wife and blessed to join with her and
made the two bodies become one soul. But the appellant caused intolerable
harassment to his better half and has driven her to death along with his
innocent child. Therefore, he can not get mercy even from the creator. This
court finds no reason to differ from the judgement of the trial court and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
hence confirms the conviction and sentence without reduction.
25. This Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned
Senior counsel and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
26. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed on the
following terms:
26.1.The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge,
Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil vide judgment dated 27.05.2016 in
S.C.No.194 of 2002 is hereby confirmed.
26.2.During the pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the second
appellant died. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as abated in respect of
the second appellant .
26.3.Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
26.4.The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to take steps to
secure the appellant Nos.1 and 3 and confine them in prison to serve their
remaining period of imprisonment.
27. List this case on 15.07.2025 for “reporting compliance”.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vadasery Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,
sbn
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 09:01:38 pm )
