GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Jeyaraman Vs. The State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police* Crl.A.No.220 of 2014 Dated: 11.10.2022 *HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN* allowed the Criminal Appeal in the matter relating to *“Alleged Dowry Death – Suicide – IPC Ss. 304-b, 498-A”,* and further observed and held as follows: 138 cheque case

[11/7, 18:28] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*Jeyaraman Vs. The State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police*
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
Dated: 11.10.2022

*HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN* allowed the Criminal Appeal in the matter relating to *“Alleged Dowry Death – Suicide – IPC Ss. 304-b, 498-A”,* and further observed and held as follows:

i) Section 304-B of I.P.C deals with death of a woman otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of her relative of the husband in connection with demand of dowry such death shall be called dowry death. Section 498-A of I.P.C states that any wilful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security will attract punishment for a term not exceeding three years and shall also be liable with fine.

ii) Therefore, the ingredient to attract the two penal provisions are: cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, or harassment seeking the property or valuable security.

iii) When there is no proof of dowry demand, the reason for committing suicide has to be examined. In the absence of evidence that soon before the self immolation the victim/deceased wife was subjected to cruelty renders the prosecution case against the appellant for offence under section 304-B of I.P.C as unsustainable.

iv) The best evidence about any cruelty soon before her death could have been only from the neighbours residing in and around the residence of the appellant and the deceased. When none of the witnesses had spoken about that the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. The omission to collect information about the previous attempt to commit suicide and treatment given also dents the credibility of the prosecution case. The deliberate omission of the Investigating Officer not requesting the RDO to conduct the enquiry and absence of plausible reason to the said omission warrants the reversal of the judgment of conviction.

v) For the above reasons, it was found that there is reasonable doubt about the prosecution case and the witnesses have not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
[11/7, 18:28] Sekarreporter 1: 👍👍