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.