Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MEKA RAMASWAMY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DASARI MOHAN AND ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S.S.M. QUADRI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Nanavati. J.
This 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.
The 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.
It was the prosecution case that she had committed
suicide as a result of cruelty practiced by the respondents.
It was 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.
The 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.
The 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/-.
On going through the judgments of both the courts and
the evidence, We find that the reasons given by the two
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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, dismissed.
The bail bonds are ordered to be concealed.