JUDGMENT Murugesan @ Subramaniam was convicted for the offences under Secs. 498-A and 306 I.P.C. by the trial Court for having tortured and abetted his wife Poonkodi to commit suicide by self-immolation within 11 days of their marriage. 2. The facts leading to the conviction of the appellant are as follows:- (a) Ponnambalam (P.W.1) and Chellathai (P.W.2) are the parents of the deceased Poonkodi. She got married to the appellant Murugesan on 30-8-1990. Ex. P-1 is the marriage invitation. P.Ws.1 and 2 gave 13-1/2 sovereigns of jewels and other household articles for the marriage of their deceased daughter. The marriage expenses were borne by both the parties. . (b) Since old banana tree was tied in the panthal at the time of marriage, there was a quarrel. So, on the date of marriage, the said old banana tree was replaced by a new banana tree. After the marriage was over, both the bride (the deceased) and bride-groom (the appellant) came to the house of P.W.1 and stayed there and celebrated the 'Shanthi Muhurtham' function. (c) Next day, the appellant again picked up quarrel over the conduct of the person who tied the old banana tree in the marriage panthal and told that he would beat that person with chappal. P.W.2, the mother of deceased, questioned him as to who would be beaten. On this, there was a wordy quarrel. Thereafter, the appellant was pacified. He told that he would take oil bath only when P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, came and asked for apology by prostrating before him. Ultimately, the parents of the appellant came there and pacified him. Thereafter, the appellant took oil bath. Next day, P.Ws.1 and 2 sent both the deceased and the appellant to their house along with stridhana articles. (d) Within few days, at Ayanavaram, in the house of P.W.1's another daughter, the 'Valaikappu' function was held. For that function, both the appellant and the deceased were invited. At that time, both P.Ws.1 and 2 enquired the deceased. For that, the deceased told them that she was being harassed and beaten by her husband daily. (e) On 8-9-1990, both the deceased and the appellant came to the house of P.W.1. On that date, P.W.1 gave Rs. 1,500/- to the appellant as he agreed earlier. At that time, both P.Ws.1 and 2 enquired the deceased. For that, the deceased told them that she was being harassed and beaten by her husband daily. (e) On 8-9-1990, both the deceased and the appellant came to the house of P.W.1. On that date, P.W.1 gave Rs. 1,500/- to the appellant as he agreed earlier. At that time, the deceased said that she would not go along with the appellant, since she would be again beaten. However, she was pacified by both P.Ws.1 and 2 and accordingly, she went along with the appellant. (f) On 10-9-1990, at about 1.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed by the brother of the appellant that the deceased poured kerosene and set ablaze herself and since her condition was serious, she was taken to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the hospital and saw the victim, the deceased. The victim was found with full of burn injuries. She was in unconscious stage. Within few hours, she died. (g) P.W.1 came to Pulianthope Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.12 Inspector of Police and he registered the same under Section 174, Cr.P.C. for suspicious death. Ex.P-2 is the complaint. (h) P.W.13 Assistant Commissioner of Police took up further investigation and went to the scene and observed all the formalities. Then, he sent a report to the P.W.9 Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate requesting him to conduct inquest. P.W.9 came and examined witnesses, Exs.P-8 and P-9 are the statements, of P.Ws.1 and 2 and thereafter he sent his report. (i) On receipt of report from P.W.9 Executive Magistrate, P.W.13, altered the F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. P.W.5 Doctor attached to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital conducted postmortem on 11-9-1990. After noting down the injuries, she issued Ex.P-3 post-mortem certificate. She found that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to external bum injuries. (j) P.W.14 another Assistant Commissioner of Police took up further investigation, examined other witnesses, arrested the accused on 12-9-1990 and sent him for remand. After investigation was over, he filed the charge sheet against the appellant before the Court for the offences under Sections 498-A 306. I.P.C. (k) In the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were filed and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. After investigation was over, he filed the charge sheet against the appellant before the Court for the offences under Sections 498-A 306. I.P.C. (k) In the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were filed and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. (l) After conclusion of trial, the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the statements of the witnesses. The appellant replied that he did not have any complicity in the crime. (m) On analysis of the materials placed before the Court, the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. and thereby, he was convicted for the said offences and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. 3. Challenging the above finding, Mr. Krishnan, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the materials available on record would not be sufficient to hold that the deceased committed suicide only due to the abetment and harassment by the appellant. It is also contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, would not reveal that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. It is further contended that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.3 and 4, the sisters of the deceased, and P.W.6, the neighbour, cannot be accepted, as they are the interested witnesses. 4. In brief, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no acceptable material to show that the appellant committed the offences under Sees. 498-A and 306, I.P.C. 5. In reply to the said sub-mission, Mr. 4. In brief, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no acceptable material to show that the appellant committed the offences under Sees. 498-A and 306, I.P.C. 5. In reply to the said sub-mission, Mr. O. Srinath, the learned Government Advocate, in justification of the reasonings given by the trial Court for the finding regarding conviction, would submit that the deceased committed suicide within 11 days from the date of her marriage and in the meantime, the deceased told the witnesses that she was treated badly by her husband and on 8-9-1990, the deceased told P.Ws.1 and 2 that she was not willing to go along with the appellant, as she would be beaten cruelly again and as such, it may be concluded that the suicide was only due to the torture and abetment by the appellant. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Counsel on either side and gone through the materials available on record. 7. There is no dispute in the fact that the deceased, who got married on 30-8-1990, died due to bum injuries on 10-9-1990 at 5.10 p.m., when she was leading her matrimonial life with the appellant. 8. According to P.W.1, the father of the deceased, P.W.2, the mother of the deceased and P.W s.3 and 4, the sisters of the deceased, and P.W.6, the neighbour, prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased told them on different occasions that she was daily tortured and beaten by her husband. 9. As a matter of fact, both P.Ws.1 and 2 would state that the deceased told them (*Matter in other language) P.W.4 would state that the deceased told her (*Matter in other language). P.W.6 Jamuna, the neighbour, would state that she was told by the deceased that she was treated very badly and she felt that she was actually thrown into a well by getting her married to a man who was so cruel. The deceased also had shown P.W.6 the injuries sustained by her due to the beating of her husband. 10. These factors had been stated by P. W.1 and 2, while they were giving statements to P.W.9 Executive Magistrate. These statements are Exs. P-8 and P-9. The deceased also had shown P.W.6 the injuries sustained by her due to the beating of her husband. 10. These factors had been stated by P. W.1 and 2, while they were giving statements to P.W.9 Executive Magistrate. These statements are Exs. P-8 and P-9. Though initially there was some reference about the demand of money, ultimately, the Executive Magistrate and the police concluded that there was no demand of dowry and the reason for the suicide committed by the deceased was only due to harassment by the appellant. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. 11. As per Section 498-A, I.P.C., when the husband subjects his wife to cruelty, the said act is punishable. The cruelty is defined as any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. 12. When there are materials to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, which drove her to commit suicide, it would definitely attract Section 498-A, I.P.C. Similarly, the act of abetment for committing suicide would attract Section 306, I.P.C. 13. Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act would provide that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband. 14. So, these three sections would clearly reveal that when the deceased was subjected to cruelty or torture by the husband within the period of seven years of her marriage, it should be presumed that the deceased committed suicide only due to the abetment committed by her husband. 15. In the instant case, after the marriage, within 11 days, the deceased told the witnesses on there occasions that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband. 16. 15. In the instant case, after the marriage, within 11 days, the deceased told the witnesses on there occasions that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant would cite the decisions in Khemraj H. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Crl.L.J. 2271 and Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Crl.L.J. 3066, in order to substantiate his submission that there shall be materials with regard to torture and means rea for the offences. 17. The facts and circumstances of the case in these decisions would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since as indicated above, there are materials through the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty continuously and she committed suicide in the house of the appellant within 11 days from the date of her marriage. In the light of Section 113- A of the Indian Evidence Act, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant would not be of any use for the defence. 18. It is seen from Ex.P-4 accident register and the evidence of P.W.7 Doctor that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the appellant and that P.W.7 Doctor was informed that the burn injuries were due to stove burst. 19. Admittedly, the deceased was in the house of the appellant when the occurrence took place. Therefore, it is within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to what really happened inside his house. The appellant told P.W.7 Doctor that the burn injuries were due to stove burst, but in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant had stated that he did not know as to why the deceased committed suicide. 20. So, in such a fact situation, there is no reason as to why the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 has to be rejected. On going through their evidence, it is clear that their evidence is consistent and the same is corroborated by the medical testimony. 21. P.W.1, while giving Ex.P-2 coinplaint, stated that P.W.2 and himself went and saw the deceased in the hospital and at that time, she was gasping for life and she was unconscious and that only at 5.10 P.M., she died. 21. P.W.1, while giving Ex.P-2 coinplaint, stated that P.W.2 and himself went and saw the deceased in the hospital and at that time, she was gasping for life and she was unconscious and that only at 5.10 P.M., she died. P.W.7 Doctor also would state that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital at 2.05 P.M., she was found with burn injuries and she was unconscious. 22. As indicated above, the particulars given by P.W.1, the father of the deceased, are consistent and in conformity with Ex.P-2 complaint and Ex.P-8 statement given to the Executive magistrate. 23. Under those circumstances, both the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C., in my view, are clearly made out against the appellant. 24. Even in regard to sentence, I do not think that it is excessive, as, in my opinion, the sentence of R.I. for 10 years for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. and 3 years for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. along with fine is quite appropriate. 25. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court are confirmed. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.