SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arunagiri vs The State Rep. By on 12 November, 2018

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.11.2018

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.96 of 2008

1.Arunagiri
2.Palaniappan
3.Narasimman
4.Nagarajan : Appellants

Vs.
The State rep. By
Inspector of Police,
Tharamangalam Police Station
Nagavalli Police Station,
Cr.No.2/2005 : Respondent

Appeal filed against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Court, Salem, in S.C.No.371 of 2006 dated 28.1.2008.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Doraisamy

For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

The appellant accused has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.1.2008 in S.C.No.371/2006

by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir court, Salem, whereby, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
-2-

appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :-

The first appellant was convicted for
offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to
undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 3
months rigorous imprisonment and convicted for
offence under Section 176 IPC and sentenced to
undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment. The appellants 2 to
4 have been convicted for offence under Section
176 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows :-

(a) The respondent police registered a case against the appellants

for offence punishable under Section 306, 176 and 498A IPC. The case of

the prosecution is that the first appellant married the deceased in 1999

and they were living together. They were blessed with two female

children. Because there was no male issue, the first appellant scolded his

wife. Due to unbearable mental agony, the deceased committed suicide by

consuming poison on 4.1.2005 and without informing to the police and the

other family members, the body of the deceased was burnt on the same
http://www.judis.nic.in

day. On the complaint of P.W.1, a complaint came to be registered against
-3-

the accused. After registration of the complaint, the respondent police took

up investigation and examined the prosecution witnesses and after

completing the same, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

Thereafter, charges were framed by the Court, to which the accused

persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the

charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined 11

witnesses, marked 12 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 and produced two

material objects.

(b) After the examination and cross examination of the prosecution

witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C..

They denied the case of the prosecution. After considering the oral as well

as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned trial

Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have come

forward with this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

counsel for the respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that except
-4-

P.W.s 1 to 3, who are none other than the father, mother and brother of

the deceased, no other independent witness has corroborated the version

of P.W.s 1 to 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 have specifically admitted that the deceased

had tried to commit suicide even earlier and there is no single averment

about the alleged torture by A-1 and others in respect of dowry

harassment. However, the learned Judge has drawn inference from the

statement of P.W.1 as if A-1 tortured the deceased person since she was

not capable of giving a male child and this torture forced her to end her

life. However, such a statement is not available either in the chief or cross

examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge

is perverse and liable to be interfered with.

6. The learned public prosecutor would submit that though P.Ws.1

to 3 are father, mother and brother of the deceased, they have

categorically stated that the accused have periodically tortured the

deceased demanding dowry and that she has not given birth to male child.

Unable to bear the mental agony, the deceased had committed suicide.

The learned Public Prosecutor fairly admitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1

to 3 is not corroborated by any independent witness examined by the

prosecution.

http://www.judis.nic.in

7. Heard both sides.

-5-

8. In the light of the above submissions, it has to be analyzed

whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubts.

9. The marriage of the 1st appellant and the deceased is not

disputed. They were blessed with two female children. It is also admitted

fact that immediately after the birth of the second child, the deceased was

done sterilization operation. The lower Court has arrived at a conclusion

that there is no dowry harassment, based on the report of the Revenue

Divisional Officer. Hence the appellants were acquitted of charges under

Section 498A IPC. However, the lower Court convicted them under Section

306 and 176 IPC.

10. A perusal of statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 makes it clear that the

possibility of the deceased taking such an extreme step with regard to the

torture for not giving male child has not been established. When that

being the position, even assuming that there was a torture, in my view,

the same would not amount to incitement or abetment to force a person

to commit suicide.

http://www.judis.nic.in

11. It is curious to note that P.Ws.2 and 3, mother and brother of
-6-

the deceased were very much available in the matrimonial home of the

deceased, after her death. It is stated that P.W.2 requested the family of

the accused not to cremate the body till P.W.1, father of the deceased

arrived. Though the date of occurrence is 4.1.2005, complaint was lodged

only on 8.1.2005, by P.W.1 at about 10 p.m. P.W.2 was very much

available in the house of the accused and she participated in the cremation

of her daughter. However, she did not file any complaint immediately.

12. Abetment is a mental process of instigating or inducing a person

to do a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate

or aid in committing suicide, charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be

inferred.

13. The learned Judge has held that the deceased underwent

mental agony due to harassment for not giving male child and birth of two

female children without any basis. However, from the evidence of P.Ws.1

to 3, no such specific averment is available. Even on a perusal of the

report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, marked as Ex.P-4, there is no

whisper about dowry harassment. The enquiry by Revenue Divisional

Officer revealed that there is no proof to show that A-1 tortured the
http://www.judis.nic.in
deceased for not giving him a male child. Further, P.W-6, Doctor, has
-7-

stated in his cross examination that the deceased person has taken

treatment from him on 5 or 6 occasions for stomach pain. P.W.9 Doctor,

who did the biopsy has stated in his evidence that no poison was identified

in the bones collected from the burial ground and he was not in a position

to reveal the reason for death. Since there is no evidence connecting the

appellants with the crime, they are liable to be acquitted.

14. In the result, the criminal appeal stands allowed and the

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 4, vide

judgment dated 28.1.2008, in S.C.No.371 of 2006, by the learned Sessions

Judge, Mahalir Court, Salem, is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.

Fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. Bail

bonds if any executed by them and sureties shall stand cancelled.

12.11.2018

Index:Yes/no

tar

To

1.The Inspector of Police,
Tharamangalam Police Station
Nagavalli Police Station, Salem.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
-8-

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

(tar)

Crl.Appeal No.96 of 2008

12.11.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation