T. ARUNTPERUNJOTHI versus STATE THROUGH S.H.O., PONDICHERRY

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Judgment (excerpt)

T. ARUNTPERUNJOTHI 
A 
v. 
STATE THROUGH S.H.0., PONDJCHERRY 
APRIL 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 304 B-Dowry death-Held, it is necessary for the prosecution 
to establish that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or C 
harassment by her husband or relative of her husband soon before her death. 
Appellant and the deceased (wife) were married on 04.09.1992. She 
admittedly committed suicide on 14.03.1994. She was brought back from her 
maternal home in February 1994. According to the appellant, the deceased 
proposed to go back to her mother's house to see her mother which he refused D 
stating that she had come back only a month back. At the time when the 
deceased committed suicide neither the appellant nor his mother was present 
in the house. The family members of the deceased namely, her mother, sister, 
maternal uncle, another relative, and brother (who was not examined), came 
to the house and allowed the cremation of the dead body in his village. They E 
took back all the articles which were given to her at the time of or after the 
marriage. No first information report was lodged by them. The police was 
informed by the appellant himself whereupon a case under Section 176 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. It is the Deputy Tahsildar-cum-
Executive Magistrate who conducted an enquiry and in his report submitted 
before the Station House Officer, Mettupalyam Police Station, raised some F 
suspicion as regards the death. In his report, it was suspected that there 
could be harassment for demand of dowry by the in-lawsiand husband of the 
deceased, based on the statements recorded in this regard. Hence he opined 
that this could be a case of dowry death. On the basis of the suspicion expressed 
by him, a case under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code came to be G 
registered against the appellant alone. His mother was not made an accused. 
She was made a prosecution witness. 
So far as demand of dowry is concerned, allegedly a demand was made 
799 
I-I 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A of8 sovereign of gold. No witness stated that the demand of dowry was made 
by the appellant himself. Evidence brought on record by the prosecution as 
regard the alleged demand of dowry is : (i) PW-3 Arumugham had been 
demanding dowry; (ii) a demand was made also by the brother of the accused; 
and (iii) the hearsay evidence PWs that the deceased herself told that she was 
B being harassed for demand of dowry. The mother of the deceased did not 
depose that she had ever been intimated by the deceased about harassment 
meted out to her. She is said to have received the information from her son 
who was not examined. 
The trial court has not given any cogent reason for disbelieving the 
C evidence of PW-1 the mother of the accused, upon whom even the prosecution 
placed reliance. The statement of PW-1 that the deceased was short tempered 
girl has not been discarded. The statement of PW-2 that even hour before 
committing suicide the deceased behaved normally had also not been taken 
into consideration. Even the trial court did not discard the explanation given 
by the accused as regard suicide of the deceased. It proceeded on the basis 
D that there was no evidence either directly or indirectly as regard harassment 
or cruelty committed by the appellant against his wife and there are only 
circumstantial evidence therefor. The necessary ingredients of circumstantial 
evidence for holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence had not 
been deliberated upon either by the trial court or by the High Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Evidence led by prosecution failed to establish involvement 
of the Appellant as regards the alleged demand of dowry. [805-0, El 
1.2. The mother of the deceased did not depose that she had ever been 
F intimated by the deceased about harassment meted out to her. She is said to 
have received the information from her son who was not examined. Her evidence, 
thus, being hearsay in nature is inadmissible in evidence. She allegedly came 
to know about the alleged harassment through her son and daughter only. 
[805-FI 
G 
2.1. No cogent evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to establish 
that the appellant had demanded any dowry. Therefore, demand of dowry or 
any harassment being the cause for the death of the deceased, cannot be said 
to have been established beyond all reasonable d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.