Vs. Dasari Mohan & Ors  INSC 14 (8 January 1998)
Nanavati, S.S.M. Quadri Nanavati. J.
appeal is filed by the father of Rajeeva, who was married to respondent No.1,
in the month May, 1987 and who committed suicide within four months. This
appeal is filed against three respondents who were tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, Part B and 498A IPC and acquitted by the trial
court and whose acquittal is confirmed by the High court.
fact that marriage of Rajeeva with respondent No.1 took place on 18.5.87 is not
in dispute. It is also not in dispute that she committed suicide on 4.9.87.
the prosecution case that she had committed suicide as a result of cruelty
practiced by the respondents.
alleged that respondent No.1 - the husband was having an affair with another
woman and for that reason he also used to beat her often. It was also alleged
that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were demanding dowry from her and her father and
as the articles demanded were not given they were ill- treating her. In order
to prove its case, the prosecution examined the Parents of Rajeeva, her sister
and her friend.
trial court after appreciating that evidence came to the conclusion that their
evidence was not consistent and it did not inspire any confidence as regards
the demand of dowry and ill-treatment. The trial court also held that the act
of coming late at night by the husband did not amount to an act of cruelty, It,
therefore, accredited the accused of all the charges levelled against them.
High court after reappreciating the evidence confirmed those findings. The High
Court has held that the whole story regarding demand of dowry was unnatural and
improbable in view of the fact that Rajeeva was married to respondent No.1 at
the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that before or at the time of marriage
they had not demanded any dowry and that they also knew that financial
condition of the father of Rajeeva was not such that he could have given a
scooter, a fridge, and almirah, a water filter and cash of Rs.2000/-.
going through the judgments of both the courts and the evidence, We find that
the reasons given by the two courts for not placing reliance upon the aforesaid
two witnesses are not at all improper, PW l - father of Rajeeva, happened to be
a friend of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. His daughter was married to respondent No.
1 at the instance of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was also not disputed that
while fixing the marriage, no demand for dowry was made. In view of these facts
and circumstances, it is not believable that within seven days of the marriage,
they would have started demanding such articles. Even in the letter, Ex.P.4
produced by the friend of Rajeeva - PW 5, there is no mention of demand of
dowry or ill-treatment, by any of respondents. The appeal is, therefore,
bail bonds are ordered to be concealed.