IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2009
D. Yuvaraj Appellant / Accused
The Inspector of Police
G-4, Redhills Police Station
Cr.No. 231 of 2004 Respondent/ Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure
code, seeking to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellant in SC No. 370 of 2005 dated 10.09.2009 on the file of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri.
For Appellant : Mr. M.L. Joseph
For M/s. Chennai Law Chambers
For Respondent : Mr. R. Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the
Judgment dated 10.09.2009 made in S.C.No.370 of 2005 by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
The accused and the deceased are the husband and wife. PW
1 and PW 2 are the parents of the deceased, PW 3 is the maternal uncle of
the deceased, PW 5 is the sister husband of the accused and PW 6 is the
younger brother of the accused. The marriage between the deceased and
the appellant was solemnized on 03.06.2001, for which Rs.1,50,000/- has
been spent by the parents of the deceased. Further, at the time of
marriage, the parents of the deceased gave 17 sovereign gold and house
hold articles as Sridhana. After the marriage, they started their
matrimonial life, along with the parents of the appellant.
3. During that time, frequent quarrel had happened between
the appellant and the deceased. Even after 10.00pm, the appellant used
to call the parents of the deceased and insisted them to take her to their
home. In the presence of elders, both the appellant and the deceased
were made compromise and sent back to their matrimonial home.
Thereafter, the appellant and the deceased were blessed with one female
child. After gave birth to the 1st child, when the deceased was 3 months
pregnant, both the appellant and the deceased have come to a marriage
function of PW 1’s relative and after completion of function, the appellant
left the deceased in the function itself and went away. On 24.05.2004,
after made compromise before the elders, the appellant took the deceased
to his sister’s house, instead of their matrimonial home. On the same day,
at about 9.30pm, PW 1 received the information as if the deceased died
to the burn injuries.
4. Immediately, PW 1 and their family members rushed to
the Hospital and found her body. On seeing the body, PW 1 preferred a
complaint before Sengundram Police Station and on receipt of the
complaint given by PW1, PW 10/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case
in Cr.No. 231 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.c and 306 IPC under Ex.P.5.
PW 14/the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, after completing the
further investigation in this case, altered the Sections into Sections 306
and 498 A of IPC and filed a Final Report.
5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the
charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In
order to prove the case of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined
as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 9 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9. Three material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. On the
side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document
was marked as exhibit.
6. Out of the above witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2 are the
parents of the deceased, PW 3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased,
PW 5 is the sister’s husband of the accused and PW 6 is the younger
brother of the accused. PW 4, PW 7 are the independent witnesses in this
case. All the other witnesses are the witnesses, who performed their
official duty and assisted the prosecution case.
7. The learned trial Judge, questioned the accused with
reference to the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution, under
section 313 Cr.P.C. for which, the accused denied the same as false.
Hence, trial was proceeded as against the accused.
8. After trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for the
offence under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
2½ years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default
to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section
498A of IPC and to undergo 9 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment
for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the Trial Court further ordered
the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the above said conviction
and sentence, the accused/appellant has come forward before this Court
with this appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that there is no material whatsoever available on record to prove
the charges under Section 306 IPC against the accused. Further, he
contended that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 who are the parents of the
deceased are totally contradictory to the evidence of PW 4, PW 5 and
PW 6. The learned Counsel further submitted that due to stove burst, the
deceased sustained severe burn injuries, resultantly, the deceased died
and the deceased also gave statement to that effect before the Doctor,
has been examined as PW 12. The said Doctor has also specifically
stated that due to the burn injuries, the deceased would have died.
However, without considering the evidence of PW 12/Doctor, who treated
the deceased at first instance, the learned trial Judge convicted the
appellant as stated above. Further, Ex.P.6/Accident Register clearly
indicates that due to the stove burst, the deceased would have died.
10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that PW 1, PW 2, PW 3
and PW 5 have clearly spoken about the quarrel between the accused and
the deceased, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the
Judgment of the Trial Court need not be interfered with.
11. I have heard Mr.M.L.Joseph, the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record carefully.
12. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be
analyzed, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt on the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt?
13. The evidence of PW 1, who is the father of the deceased
clearly indicates that after the marriage, the deceased was residing along
with the parents of the accused. During that time, the accused/appellant
the deceased out of the matrimonial house demanding money.
However, in his cross examination, he clearly indicates that several times,
PW 1 and PW 2 pacified their deceased daughter to go to her matrimonial
home. However, on perusal of entire evidence, there is no whisper for the
cruelty made by the accused against the deceased. PW 5 evidenced to the
effect that on 24.05.2004, at about 8.00 pm, the accused and the
deceased had come to his house along with their 1½ years girl child.
Since they had come to his house unexpectedly and as there was no food
available in his house, he went to purchase some idlies for the child and
started to feed the child, by standing opposite to his house. At that time,
the wife of PW 5 brought water for the child and the accused also came
along with his wife. Suddenly, a burning body(deceased) came out from
his house and fell down in the street. Immediately, the accused roped her
with bed sheet and taken her to the Hospital. Hence, the only eye witness
adduced by the prosecution in this case is PW 5.
14. On perusal of the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3 and PW 6,
there is no cruelty or quarrel alleged against the appellant. On perusal of
the evidence of PW 4, it is revealed that the appellant has no illegal
contact or bad habits. On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution,
there is no incitement or abetment to force the deceased to commit
suicide. The abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing 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. There should be a live link or
link between the act of the accused and the act of the deceased
committing suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the
accused have incited or induced the deceased to take the extreme step of
15. In the present case, perusal of the evidence of PW 1 to
PW 6, it is known that there is no allegation of harassment or cruelty as
against the accused. There is also no allegation against the appellant for
abetment to force the deceased to commit suicide. In view of the above,
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the Judgment of the Trial
Court needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
conviction and sentence as against the appellant / accused, in the
Judgment dated 10.09.2009 in SC No. 370 of 2005, passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri are set aside. The appellant / accused is
acquitted from the charge under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC. Fine
amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused is ordered to be refunded to
him. The bail bond, if any, executed by him and the sureties shall stand
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Ponneri.
2.The Inspector of Police
G-4, Redhills Police Station
Cr.No. 231 of 2004
Crl.A.No.637 of 2009