SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

D. Yuvaraj vs State By on 21 December, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 21.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2009

D. Yuvaraj Appellant / Accused
Vs

State by
The Inspector of Police
G-4, Redhills Police Station
Chennai
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)

JUDGMENT

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.

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

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

http://www.judis.nic.indue to the burn injuries.
3

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.

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

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,

http://www.judis.nic.inwho has been examined as PW 12. The said Doctor has also specifically
5

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

http://www.judis.nic.indriven the deceased out of the matrimonial house demanding money.
6

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

http://www.judis.nic.inproximity link between the act of the accused and the act of the deceased
7

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

committing suicide.

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

terminated/discharged.

21.12.2018

vrn/pri

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No

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

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

vrn/pri

To

1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Ponneri.

2.The Inspector of Police
G-4, Redhills Police Station
Chennai
Cr.No. 231 of 2004

Crl.A.No.637 of 2009

21.12.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh