Judgment :- Appellant is the Accused in S.C.No.340 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II) Coimbatore. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment (dated 08.04.2002), under which the Appellant / Accused was found guilty for demand of Dowry, Dowry Harassment and Dowry Death. 2. The gist of charges framed against the Accused, the findings of the Trial Court and the Sentence of Imprisonment / Fine imposed thereon is as noted below:- Charge made Gist of charge Finding of Trial Court Sentence/ Imprisonment 1U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Demand of Dowry by way of money and jewels Found Guilty Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and Fine of Rs.2000/-2 U/s.304-B I.P.C. Dowry Death of Leelavathy Found Guilty Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven years 3 U/s.498-A I.P.C Demand of Dowry, Dowry Harassment and Cruelty Found Guilty Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs.1000/- 4 U/s.306 I.P.C. Abetment to commit suicide All sentences ordered Found Guilty to run concur Rigorous Imprisonment for Five years and fine of Rs.2000/-rently 3.The case of Prosecution could briefly be stated thus:- The Deceased-Leelavathy and P.W.2-Kavitha are the Daughters of P.W.1-Saraswathi. P.W.3-Ravi is the Husband of P.W.2. Deceased-Leelavathy was given in marriage to the Accused in 1994. At the time of their marriage, four sovereign Gold Jewels / Gold Chain and cash were given to her. The Accused was then working in “Gold Pattarai”. After marriage, for about two years, the Accused and the Deceased were staying in the house of P.W.1 herself. Out of lawful wedlock, a girl child Priyanga was born to them. 4. The Accused was addicted to drinks and was not taking proper care of the Deceased and the Child. There was demand of Dowry and money. For keeping separate gold pattarai, the Accused had been demanding money and ill-treating Leelavathy. After two years of marriage, the Accused and Leelavathy had a separate residence in Pappanayakan Pudur. Even during that separate residence, the Accused persisted in the demand of money and jewels. P.W.1 tried to pacify that the demand of the Accused would be settled by selling her properties, which could not immediately be done. Nearly after four years of residence in Pappanayakan Pudur, the Accused and the Deceased shifted their residence to Gandhi Park and were residing in the house of P.W.4-Rajammal as the Tenants. P.W.1 tried to pacify that the demand of the Accused would be settled by selling her properties, which could not immediately be done. Nearly after four years of residence in Pappanayakan Pudur, the Accused and the Deceased shifted their residence to Gandhi Park and were residing in the house of P.W.4-Rajammal as the Tenants. Deceased-Leelavathy was frequently visiting her Mother’s house and was informing her about the cruelty by the Accused and that the family is struggling for survival. Few days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 gave Rice and other Provisions to Leelavathy for cooking the food in the house of the Accused and the Deceased. 5. On the evening of 21.09.2000, the Accused informed her Landlady-P.W.4 and her Daughter-in-law-P.W.5 that Leelavathy was unwell. P.W.5 went to help Leelavathy. She found Leelavathy in unconscious state. Firstly, the Accused did not disclose that Leelavathy committed suicide by hanging. He only informed P.W.5 that the condition of Leelavathy is serious and to be taken to the Hospital. Believing his words, P.W.5 had taken Leelavathy to Hospital, where she was declared dead. Ex.P.4 is the Death Intimation. On 21.09.2000, P.W.1 received information that her Daughter-Leelavathy was in serious condition and had been taken to the Hospital. P.W.1 went to the Hospital and found Leelavathy dead. 6. Registration of the Case and Investigation: P.W.7-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Coimbatore received Ex.P.4-Death Intimation. P.W.1-Saraswathi also preferred Ex.P.1-Complaint. On the basis of Ex.P.1-Complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.37 of 2000 for suspicious death under Sec.174 Crl.P.C under Ex.P.5-F.I.R. 7. Since the death was within seven years of marriage, requisition was sent to Revenue Divisional Officer for holding the Inquest. P.W.8-Revenue Divisional Officer held the Inquest on 22.09.2000 on the body of the Deceased-Leelavathy. Witnesses / P.Ws.1 to 3 and others were examined in the presence of Panchayatars. Ex.P.6 is the Inquest Report. P.W.8 was of the opinion that the death was due to Dowry Harassment and Cruelty and directed the Police to take up further Investigation. 8. After the Inquest, the body was sent for Autopsy. P.W.9-Dr.Sundararajan conducted Post Mortem on the body of the Deceased-Leelavathy. Ex.P.6 is the Inquest Report. P.W.8 was of the opinion that the death was due to Dowry Harassment and Cruelty and directed the Police to take up further Investigation. 8. After the Inquest, the body was sent for Autopsy. P.W.9-Dr.Sundararajan conducted Post Mortem on the body of the Deceased-Leelavathy. He has noted, “...an incomplete, oblique ligature mark encircling the upper part of Neck 24 x 1.5 c.ms with a gap of 11 c.ms in the back and right side of Neck, where it merges with the hair line.....” On bloodless dissection of Neck; the base of the ligature mark is hard and parchment like with no extravasation of blood in the superficial and deep planes of Neck. Hyoid bone intact....” P.W.9 opined that the death was due to Asphyxia due to Hanging. Ex.P.8 is the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P.10 is the Final Report. 9. P.W.10-Assistant Commissioner of Police had taken up further Investigation. The scene of occurrence / House was inspected in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P.2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.11-Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. M.O.1 series – Dhothi pieces, which were used by Leelavathy for hanging were seized under Ex.P.3-Seizure Mahazar. 10. P.W.10 received Ex.P.7-Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.09.2000. On the basis of Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the case was altered into Sec.498-A,304-B and 306 I.P.C and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Accused was arrested on 28.09.2000 – 03.00 p.m and he was remanded to judicial custody. After obtaining Medical Opinion and examining the Witnesses and on completion of formalities of the Investigation, Charge Sheet has been filed against the Accused on 18.12.2000 for the aforesaid offences. 11. In the Trial Court, to substantiate the charges against the Accused, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. M.O.1 series were remanded to Court. Upon consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and found that the demand of Dowry and ill-treatment by the Accused are well proved by the Prosecution. Pointing out the conduct of the Accused in pretending to P.Ws.4 and 5 as if Leelavathy was unwell, the Trial Court found that the conduct of the Accused clearly shows that the Accused is responsible for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. The contention that a false case has been registered against the Accused was rejected by the Trial Court. 12. Pointing out the conduct of the Accused in pretending to P.Ws.4 and 5 as if Leelavathy was unwell, the Trial Court found that the conduct of the Accused clearly shows that the Accused is responsible for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. The contention that a false case has been registered against the Accused was rejected by the Trial Court. 12. Aggrieved over the verdict of Conviction and Sentence, the Appellant / Accused has preferred this Appeal. Assailing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has submitted that only during the Inquest, the Witnesses have deposed about the demand of Dowry and ill-treatment which is clearly an afterthought and the same cannot form basis for the Conviction. In support of the contention that there had been no quarrel between the Accused and Leelavathy, much reliance is placed upon the evidence of P.W.4-Landlady, who turned hostile. Pointing out certain discrepancies in the evidence and the Statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is contended that the Trial Court erred in basing the conviction on the improved version of P.Ws.1 to 3. The main defence is that the Deceased committed suicide due to poverty and that the Accused had been falsely implicated by the police to wreak vengeance. Submitting that there are no substantial materials to sustain the Conviction, learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has prayed to set aside the Conviction. 13. Laying emphasis upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P.7- Enquiry Report of Revenue Divisional Officer, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. V.M.R.Rajendran has submitted that the evidence on record sufficiently proves the demand of Dowry. It is contended that even in Ex.P.1 which was earlier in point of time, the allegation of demand of Dowry is well brought out and that there is no improved or afterthought version. Contending that in appreciation of the evidence learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the Accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no reason warranting interference in the verdict of Conviction and Sentence imposed thereon. 14. Upon consideration of the submissions, Judgment and other materials on record, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the Conviction of the Appellant / Accused for the Demand of Dowry, Dowry Harassment and Dowry Death suffers from any infirmity or warranting interference by this Court? 15. 14. Upon consideration of the submissions, Judgment and other materials on record, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the Conviction of the Appellant / Accused for the Demand of Dowry, Dowry Harassment and Dowry Death suffers from any infirmity or warranting interference by this Court? 15. Admittedly, the marriage of the Accused and the Deceased was solemnized in 1994. For about two years, the Accused and the Deceased were living with P.W.1-Mother of Deceased herself. Thereafter for a long time of about four years, the couple had taken separate residence in Pappanayakan Pudur. About few months prior to the occurrence, they shifted the residence to Gandhi Park to the house of P.W.4. The death is within seven years of marriage – otherwise than under normal circumstances. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the demand of Dowry and Cash by the Accused is well brought on record. P.W.3-Brother-in-law of the Deceased has also spoken to the effect that there had been demand of Dowry by the Accused, whose evidence strengthens the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 has also stated that even after the Accused has shifted the residence to Gandhi Park, the Accused had been continuously treating Leelavathy cruelly. Demand of Cash and jewels and the cruelty to the Deceased-Leelavathy are well proved by the Prosecution. 16. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is well corroborated by their earlier Statement before P.W.8-Revenue Divisional Officer. After examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and other Witnesses, including Priyanga, Daughter of the Deceased, P.W.8 arrived at a definite finding that there had been demand of Dowry and that the death was due to Dowry Harassment and Cruelty. We may usefully refer to the definite finding of P.W.8-Revenue Divisional Officer in his Enquiry Report-Ex.P.7, which is as follows: 17. While deciding whether the Deceased was harassed or ill-treated by her Husband, various factors and circumstances are to be considered by the Court. Since the offence against the married woman is committed within the four walls of the house, direct evidence is hardly forthcoming. Hence, the Statement of the relatives of the victim woman, to whom disclosure statement would have been made, is the best evidence to prove mental agony and cruelty shown towards the Deceased and the conduct of the Accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 have personally known the conduct of the Accused while he was living with them for about two years. Hence, the Statement of the relatives of the victim woman, to whom disclosure statement would have been made, is the best evidence to prove mental agony and cruelty shown towards the Deceased and the conduct of the Accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 have personally known the conduct of the Accused while he was living with them for about two years. Thereafter, the conduct of the Accused was informed to them by Leelavathy, who has complained that the Accused has been treating her cruelly and with ill-treatment. 18. P.W.4-Rajammal is the House Owner of Gandhi Park house. P.W.5-Tamil Selvi is the Daughter-in-law of P.W.4. In their evidence, both P.Ws.4 and 5 have stated that the Accused and the Deceased were living in their house for about five months and that they were living happily and that there was no problem / differences between them. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is very much relied upon by the Accused to assail the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and to attack the case of the Prosecution. On the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is mainly contended that the ordinary case of suicide due to poverty has been converted as Dowry Death and the Accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Version of P.Ws.4 and 5 cannot in any way stultify the consistent version of P.Ws.1 to 3. Since the Accused and the Deceased were living in the house of P.W.4 only for few months prior to the occurrence, P.W.4 though House Owner being a stranger, may not have known the happenings between the spouses. The point urged by the Accused placing reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 does not merit acceptance nor does it throw any doubt on the version of P.Ws.1 to 3. In cases of Dowry Death, the demand of Dowry and the conduct of the Accused would be disclosed only to close relatives like Mother and Sister. On the basis of the evidence of Neighbours, the same cannot be doubted. Normally, disclosure of cruelty would be made only to related persons and hence, the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be doubted on the version of P.Ws.4 and 5. 19. On the basis of the evidence of Neighbours, the same cannot be doubted. Normally, disclosure of cruelty would be made only to related persons and hence, the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be doubted on the version of P.Ws.4 and 5. 19. Learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has pointed out certain discrepancies in the Statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 – in their evidence and their Statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the time and Demand of Dowry, Cash and Jewels. In cases of this nature, such omissions and contradictions would not destroy the case of the Prosecution, resulting in quarrel of the Accused. The contradictions pointed out do not go to the root of the matter nor does it raise doubt on the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy due to harassment. Learned Sessions Judge has found that P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed in a natural way which consistently proves the Demand of Cash and Jewels. No substantive reasons are placed before this Court to take a different view. 20. The occurrence was on the evening of 21.09.2000. Leelavathy ended her life by committing suicide by hanging. The presence of the Accused at the time of the occurrence is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The Accused had already removed the hanging body of Leelavathy. Obviously, even by that time, the end must have come. But, without disclosing the same that Leelavathy had committed suicide by hanging, the Accused gave false information to P.Ws.4 and 5 that Leelavathy is unwell and sought their assistance to attend her. P.W.5 went to the house of the Accused and found contusion and ligature mark encircling the Neck of the Deceased. Only when P.W.5 persisted in asking the Accused, the Accused informed her that Leelavathy committed suicide by hanging. Even thereafter, under the pretension of attending his Wife, the Accused had taken Leelavathy to the Hospital. The conduct of the Accused in giving false information to P.W.1 that Leelavathy has been unwell is also to be noted. Such giving false information to P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and taking the Deceased to the Hospital leads to the only inference that the Accused had been the cause for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. One is to be too naive to accept the contention of the Accused that he was no way responsible for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. 21. Such giving false information to P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and taking the Deceased to the Hospital leads to the only inference that the Accused had been the cause for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. One is to be too naive to accept the contention of the Accused that he was no way responsible for the suicidal hanging of Leelavathy. 21. In re-appraisal of the evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly found the Accused guilty of demand of Dowry, Dowry Harassment and Dowry Death. The reasonings for the conviction are well balanced based on the materials on record. The conviction does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Appellant / Accused is also reasonable warranting no interference. 22. C.A.No.107 of 1993:- Thus, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment (dated 08.04.2002) of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II) Coimbatore in S.C.No.340 of 2001, convicting the Appellant / Accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 I.P.C and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Sentence of Imprisonment imposed upon him and the quantum of fine.