CASE NAME	Sakhtivel v. State
CITATION	Crl.A. No.395 of 2018 & Crl.M.P. No.6549 of 2019
COURT	Madras High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice P.N. Prakash
PETITIONER	Sakhtivel
RESPONDENTS	State, D.S.P. Namakkal Sub Division, Namakkal District
DECIDED ON	Decided on 6th August, 2019

INTRODUCTION

The Madras High Court rendered a decision in the case of Sakthivel v. State on August 9, 2019, which concerned grave accusations of dowry harassment and subsequent mysterious death. The Indian Penal Code’s Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 304-B (dowry death) charged Sakthivel, the deceased woman’s husband. The victim’s family accused her husband and in-laws when she passed away in her married house under odd circumstances, allegedly as a result of being mistreated for not paying the dowry. To ascertain whether dowry harassment contributed to her premature death, the court considered the type of matrimonial cruelty, witness statements, and other evidence. The court’s commitment to addressing issues of domestic violence, dowry killings, and the protection of women from harassment in married relationships is shown in this case, which underscores important legal principles regarding charges related to dowries.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the prosecution, the late Rajalakshmi and Sakthivel (A1), the appellant in this case, fell in love, eloped, and married against the wishes of their families. Later, both families came to terms with the marriage, and the couple had a male child. However, after the marriage, the appellant and his family began to demand dowry from Rajalakshmi and subjected her to abuse. Unable to bear this, Rajalakshmi took an insecticide called organophosphorus compound and hanged herself in a jackfruit tree close to her marital residence. Rajalakshmi’s father, Chandran (P.W.8), Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a written complaint (Ex.P.1) on behalf of Rangasamy (P.W.1), and created a printed FIR (Ex.P.5) that was submitted to the Magistrate for jurisdiction. 

Given that Rajalakshmi passed away within seven years of her marriage, Annamalai (P.W.14) assumed responsibility for the case’s investigation. She visited the scene and created an observation mahazar (Ex. P.3) as well as a rough sketch (Ex. P. 11). It might be pertinent to mention that the appellant and the other villagers lowered Rajalakshmi’s body and brought it to his house, which was roughly 125 feet from the jack fruit tree, as soon as they learned that she had been found hanging. The rope (M.O.1) that Rajalakshmi was reportedly using to hang under a mahazar (Ex.P.4) was confiscated by Annamalai (P.W.14) in front of witnesses Rathnasabapathy (P.W.6) and Kandasamy (not examined). The corpse was sent to the Namakkal Government Hospital, where it was kept in a mortuary.

Following Annamalai’s (P.W.14) transfer, Rajendran (P.W.15) took up the investigation. He finished it and filed a final report in P.R.C. No.34 of 2015 before Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Namakkal, for the offenses against Sakthivel (A1), his father Sathappan (A2), his mother Jayamani (A3), and his sister Kavitha (A4) under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Following the appellant’s attendance, the Court of Session in S.C. No.35 of 2016 took up the case in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the Mahila Sessions Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal, was given custody of the case for trial. The Trial Court convicted the appellant; hence, this appeal is preferred.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the death of the deceased was suicide or homicide?
• Whether Rajalakshmi’s suicide was caused by harassment over her dowry?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the appellant

• The prosecution’s witnesses, namely Rangasamy (P.W.1), Rajalakshmi’s father, Bommayee (P.W.2), Rajalakshmi’s mother, and Mani (P.W.3), Rajalakshmi’s paternal uncle, clearly demonstrate that Rajalakshmi and the appellant were in love, eloped, and got married. Rajalakshmi even filed a police complaint against her parents, seeking protection from them. Eventually, both families came to terms with the marriage, and the appellant’s family even settled on one acre of land in their shared name. Despite this, it is highly unlikely that the appellant and his family members demanded a dowry in connection with the marriage.
• Rajalakshmi’s remark to Rangasamy (P.W.1) is not acceptable as proof.
• Rajalakshmi had a tendency to take her own life. Aside from a vague recommendation to Bommayee (P.W.2), there is absolutely no evidence presented to this Court indicating that Rajalakshmi harbored suicidal thoughts.
• In the lack of a charge, the appellant cannot be found guilty of the offense under Section 306 IPC. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The esteemed Government Advocate (Crl. Side) cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein paragraph no. 25 states: 

In this instance, the prosecution has proven that the deceased was treated with mental cruelty and that the death happened under unusual circumstances within seven years, which are the fundamental elements of the offense under Section 306 IPC. As a result, the conviction is now made under Section 306 IPC rather than Section 304-B IPC. We restrict the length of the punishment to the time already served because the accused has been in detention for nearly five years.

JUDGMENT

The court declared that Rajalakshmi’s death, in this instance, was a suicide rather than a homicide. Suicide deaths are covered by both Section 306 and Section 304-B of the IPC. The accused are charged under Section 498-A IPC with subjecting Rajalakshmi to cruelty by demanding diamonds and claiming that the appellant’s life would have been different if he had been married to a girl from a wealthy family. The Evidence Act’s Section 113-A now includes the definition of “cruelty” as it appears in Section 498-A of the IPC. 

The accusations made against the accused in this case for offenses under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act included elements of Rajalakshmi’s cruelty. Consequently, the defendants were not caught off guard and knew what they had to protect themselves against. Further, the appellant has not rebutted the presumption under Section 113-A IPC, even by a preponderance of probability. The appellant’s conviction and imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are overturned in light of the previously discussed case. The appellant’s conviction and imprisonment under Section 498-A are upheld. Furthermore, this Court finds the appellant guilty of the offense under Section 306 IPC and sentences him to three years of hard labor with a fine of Rs. 2,000; if he doesn’t pay the fee, he will do six months of hard labor. The sentences will flow one after the other.

CONCLUSION

With regard to the legal framework surrounding charges relating to dowries, namely under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the case Sakthivel v. State provides important insights. Regarding dowry deaths, Section 304-B requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the lady was cruelly or harassed over her dowry and that her death happened under unusual circumstances within seven years of marriage. Section 498-A makes cruelty by the husband or his family members illegal, especially when the woman’s physical or mental health is damaged as a result of dowry demands. When Section 304-B IPC and the definition of “dowry” are read together, it becomes clear that the requirement for dowry must be related to marriage. 

In this instance, the prosecution’s evidence indicated that the victim’s continuous harassment following her marriage—caused by unfulfilled dowry demands—led to her demise in the marital residence. A lack of concrete proof, according to the defense, connected Sakthivel and his family to the alleged brutality that resulted in the death. The main defense rested on the assertion that the death was not the result of abuse or harassment but rather an accident or natural occurrence. The victim’s family members, especially her parents, provided testimonial evidence at trial attesting to the victim’s continuous demands for dowry, which the court took into consideration in its analysis. In addition, the prosecution invoked the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act by relying on circumstantial evidence, the pattern of cruelty, and the time of the death, which happened seven years after marriage. Due to this presumption, the accused now has the burden of demonstrating that the death was not caused by dowry harassment.

The Madras High Court maintained Sakthivel’s claims, ruling that there was enough proof of abuse and intimidation related to dowry demands. The case emphasizes how crucial Section 304-B is to solving dowry deaths and prosecuting those who commit them. It also emphasizes the way in which the judiciary has applied the Indian Evidence Act’s presumptions, stressing the gravity of violations related to dowries and the necessity of shielding women from domestic abuse. In order to ensure justice for victims and their families, this case upholds the legal position that matrimonial cruelty, particularly that related to dowry, shall be strictly prosecuted under Indian law.