JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s. 374[2] Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by judgment dated 29.07.2010 in SC.No.28/2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-II, Poonamallee and to acquit the appellant by allowing the appeal.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.07.2010 made in SC.No.28/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee. The appellant stood charged and tried for the commission of the offences under sections 498-A ; 306 and 304[B] IPC and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.07.2010, had acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against him under sections 304[B] and 306 IPC and however, convicted him for the commission of the offence under section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. Askar Sheriff -the appellant herein, is the husband of the deceased/victim Asin Taj. P.W.3-Abdul Salaam is the father of the victim ; P.W.4-Sultana Bee is the mother and P.Ws.5 and 8-Thamees Ahmed and Gabrees Ahmed are the brothers of the deceased/victim respectively. 3. The case of the prosecution has arisen on the basis of the complaint Ex.P1, dated 05.09.2007, given by P.W.1-Amul, who is a resident of Nandavana Mettur, Avadi, Chennai and is also the neighbour of the deceased and the appellant. Deceased Asin Taj was given in marriage with the appellant on 19.06.2003 and at the time of marriage, 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.25,000/- cash and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given as sreedhana. From the date of marriage, the deceased was living in a joint family and since marriage, the victim Asin Taj was meted out with cruelty and torture at the hands of the appellant on account of dowry demand on various occasions and she used to say about the demand of dowry by the appellant to her parents who had complied with the demands made by the appellant/accused. Three months prior to the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased came to Avadi and started living separately. Three months prior to the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased came to Avadi and started living separately. At one point of time, prior to their residing at Avadi, the victim was made to stay at her parental home at the insistence of the appellant on demand of Rs.3 lakhs from out of the retirement benefits of the father of the deceased/victim. Unable to bear the same, on 05.09.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., the victim Asin Taj committed suicide by hanging, resulting in her death. The parents of the victim, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 received a phone call from the police about their daughter committing suicide. RDO Enquiry was also conducted since the victim died within 7 years of her marriage. The police recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and appellant/accused was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 304[B], 306 and 498-A IPC. 4. The case was taken on file in PRC No.28/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee and subsequently, the case was made over to the Trial Court, viz.,the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Poonamallee, in SC.No.28/2010 and necessary charge was framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12 and also marked Exs.P1 to P13. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence. 5. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313[1][b] Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, acquitted the appellant/accused for the offences under sections 304[B] and 306 IPC and however, found him guilty for the commission of the offence under section 498-A IPC and awarded punishment, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal. 7. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 8. 7. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused made the following submissions:- a. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge against the appellant on 29.07.2010 in SC.No.28/2010 is illegal and contrary to the evidence before the Court. b. The learned Judge ought to have held that the evidence placed by the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant for the commission of the offence under section 498-A IPC. c. The learned Trial Judge, having disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses and having acquitted the appellant/accused for the charges under sections 304[B] and 306 IPC, ought not to have convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC, without there being any evidence to show that the appellant/accused had committed cruelty on the deceased-his wife. d. The learned Trial Judge had failed to take into consideration the embellishments in this case and that it is the admitted case of P.Ws.3 and 4 - parents of the deceased/victim that they have not been examined by the respondent police and in respect of the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 -brothers of the deceased/victim, the Investigating Officer [P.W.12] has admitted that the witnesses have not stated anything about the victim-their sister, being harassed by the appellant/accused and that they have not stated anything to the Investigating Officer during enquiry, about the demand of dowry made by the appellant/accused. e. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the judgment reported in [Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharashtra]. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that though P.Ws.3 and 4 have admitted that they have not been enquired by the respondent police, it is the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 that their sister was harassed by the appellant/accused for demand of dowry and hence, submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC, does not warrants interference and prays for dismissal of this criminal appeal. 10. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction, including the relevant provisions of Law and authorities of various Courts. 11. 10. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction, including the relevant provisions of Law and authorities of various Courts. 11. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, which is impugned herein, it is seen that the Trial Court had disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, viz., P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 8 in respect of the charges under sections 304[B] and 306 IPC and acquitted the appellant/accused of the said charges. The only point of consideration is that whether the Trial Court was right in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC. 12. While analysing the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 - father and mother of the deceased/victim respectively, it is seen that they have not been examined by the respondent police during enquiry. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.11-RDO that only P.W.3, the father of the victim gave a statement to him and all the other witnesses examined by him during enquiry, viz., P.Ws.4,5 and 8, have stated that they adopt the statement given by P.W.3. It is the evidence of P.W.12-the investigating officer that during enquiry, P.Ws.5 and 8 have not specifically stated or spoken about the demand of dowry or the harassment meted out to their sister at the hands of the appellant/accused. Apart from these witnesses, one Babuji, who is the relative of the deceased/victim and who was examined by P.W.11-RDO, has not been examined before the Court. There is not even an iota of evidence to prove the case of the prosecution as regards the offence under section 498-A IPC and that the deceased/victim was driven to commit suicide due to the same. The neighbours of the appellant/accused and the deceased/victim, viz., P.Ws.1, 2 and 9, also have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have not stated anything as to the appellant/accused being harassed the deceased/victim. They have stated that there was no difference of opinion between the spouses during the period of their stay at Avadi. 13. CHAPTER XXA of the Indian Penal Code deals with Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband and section 498-A IPC reads thus:- 498A. They have stated that there was no difference of opinion between the spouses during the period of their stay at Avadi. 13. CHAPTER XXA of the Indian Penal Code deals with Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband and section 498-A IPC reads thus:- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation -For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-(a) 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; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 14. On perusal of the entire records and evidence in consonance with the above provision, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not let in sufficient evidence to show that the appellant/accused had subjected the deceased/victim-his wife to cruelty which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, thereby satisfying the requirement of section 498-A IPC. 15. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in paragraph Nos.16 and 18 as thus:- “16 We have already noted Section 498-A hereinbefore in this judgment and as such we need not delve upon the same in greater detail herein excepting recording that the same stands attributed only in the event of proof of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the husband of the woman. Admittedly, the finding of the Trial Court as regards the death negated suicide with a positive finding of accidental death. Admittedly, the finding of the Trial Court as regards the death negated suicide with a positive finding of accidental death. If suicide is ruled out, then in that event applicability of section 498-A can be had only in terms of explanation [b] thereto which in no uncertain terms records harassment of the woman and the Statute itself thereafter clarifies it to the effect that it is not every such harassment but only in the even of such a harassment being with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her of an person related to her to meet such demand -there is total absence of any requirements of the Statute in terms of Section 498-A IPC. The three letters said to have been written and as noticed earlier cannot possibly lend any credence to the requirement of the Statute of even a simple demand for dowry. .... 18 A faint attempt has been made during the course of submissions that explanation [a] to the Section stands attracted and as such no fault can be attributed to the judgment. This, in our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason of the specific finding of the Trial Court and the High Court concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and not suicide. If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of explanation [a] would not arise -neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted. In any event, the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498-A and not de hors the same. To have an event, sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under section 498-A. The Legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation [b] that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation [b]. The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of section 498-A against the accused. The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record.” 16. As held out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision, though an acquittal under section 306 IPC itself is not a ground for acquittal under section 498-A IPC, there must be a cogent material in the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC. Further, the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498-A IPC. However, in the case on hand, though the factum of the victim committing suicide is not denied, it has to be seen whether the conduct of the appellant/accused had driven the victim to commit so. A perusal of the evidences of P.Ws.1, 2 and 9, who are neighbours of the spouses, would show that there was no misunderstanding or difference of opinion between the appellant/accused and the deceased/victim and that the evidence of P.W.4-mother of the victim as regards demand of dowry during their stay at Avadi, is also not supported by any other independent witness. No evidence has been brought forth by the prosecution to show that the appellant/accused committed cruelty on the victim. The Trial Court, having found that there was no evidence for demand of dowry and the appellant/accused having abetted the victim to commit suicide, had acquitted the appellant/accused for the charges under sections 304[B] and 306 IPC. However, strangely, on the same set of facts, the Trial Court had found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence under section 498-A IPC without there being any evidence that the appellant/accused by any wilful conduct committed cruelty which was of such a nature which had driven the victim to commit suicide and would thereby, in the opinion of this Court, is erroneous. 17. 17. Hence, in view of the above findings and discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the Trial Court, warrants interference and has to be set aside. 18. In the result, these criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in SC.NO.28/2010 vide judgment dated 29.07.2010, are hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Bail bond if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to him.