Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.A(MD)No.314 of 2019
Selvam … Appellant
Vs
1.Ashok Kumar
2.Thangaraj
3.Perumayee
4.Ambika
5.Manimaran
6.State by
The Inspector of Police,
Cumbum North Police Station,
Theni District.
In Crime No.575 of 2009 … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the Judgment passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam in S.C.No.37 of
2010, dated 10.03.2011 acquitting the accused for the offences
under Section 498(A) and Section304(B) r/w 34 of SectionIPC and set aside the
same.
For Appellant : Mr.Balakarthick
for Mr.V.S.Balamurugan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Rajamohan
for Mr.M.Samraj
For R4 R5 : Mr.S.Sukumar
for M.P.V.Veluchamy
For R6 : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in1/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
acquittal dated 10.03.2011 in S.C.No.37 of 2010 on the file of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam.
2.The defaco complainant/P.W.1 is the appellant.
The prosecution case is that the first accused Ashok Kumar, got
married to Krishna Priya daughter of the revision petitioner herein
on 04.02.2009. She committed suicide by hanging herself in her
matrimonial home on 12.10.2009. In this regard, the revision
petitioner herein lodged Ex.P1 complaint before the Cumbum Police
Station, leading to registration of Ex.P4-FIR in Crime No.575 of
2009 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Investigation was taken up and
after completing all the usual formalities, final report came to be
laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthampalayam against the
husband and in-laws of the deceased for the offences under
Sections 498A and Section304(B) r/w 34 of SectionIPC. The case was committed
to the Sessions Court and it made over to the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Uthamapalayam for trial in S.C.No.37 of 2010. Charges
were framed against all the five accused in respect of the aforesaid
offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
http://www.judis.nic.in2/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P12. On the side of the accused, three witnesses were examined
as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D18 were marked. On the side
of the prosecution, M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. The learned trial
Judge, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its
case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Challenging the same, the defacto complainant filed Cr.R.C.(MD)No.
549 of 2011.
3.When the case came up for hearing, this Court noted
that the impugned Judgment was passed after the amendment to
Section 372 of Cr.P.C. was made. Therefore, this Court directed the
Registry to convert the criminal revision case to one of appeal.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the suicide of Krishna Priya took place within eight
months from the date of marriage. He pointed out that the conduct
of the accused was highly suspicious. They did not inform P.W.1
about the death of Krishna Priya. In fact, information came from
http://www.judis.nic.in3/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
P.W.6-Eswaran. He also pointed out that it can be seen from the
RDO report that there were injuries on the person of the deceased.
He primarily faulted the impugned Judgment on the ground that the
presumption set out under Section 113(b) of the Indian Evidence
Act was not applied. He wanted this Court to reverse the impugned
Judgment.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused submitted that the impugned Judgment does not call for
any interference and wanted this Court to confirm the acquittal.
The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) took me through the
evidence on record and assisted this Court.
7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and perused
the evidence on record.
8.This Court posed a question to the learned counsel for
the accused as to what could have led Krishna Priya to commit
suicide that too within eight months from the date of marriage. The
learned counsel appearing for the accused took me through the
testimony of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and also the defence exhibits. It has
been categorically established by the accused that Krishna Priya was
http://www.judis.nic.in4/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
labouring under the impression that she may have difficulty in
conceiving and that, she was under regular treatment in this regard.
Not only the Doctor who gave treatment to Krishna Priya, was
examined but also the medical records were marked.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the accused drew my
attention to the testimony of P.W.5-Prabha. Of-course, the said
Prabha was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is however well
settled that even the testimony of a hostile witness can be taken
into account. The said Prabha belongs to the very same village,
where, the matrimonial home of the deceased is located. Prabha
and the deceased were good friends. Even though Prabha had
counselled the deceased that she should not worry too much about
conceiving, it appears that the deceased was under considerable
mental stress in this regard. It appears that Krishna Priya had
initially conceived, but later, the same got aborted.
10.The primary argument of the appellant’s counsel is that
krishna Priya was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry
related demands. I am of the view that this was not at all
established. It is admitted by P.W.1 himself that the wedding
expenses were borne by the family of the deceased. Not only that
http://www.judis.nic.in5/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
when P.W.1 was having some financial difficulties, the accused
family had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- as hand loan. In my view,
these two circumstances are more than sufficient to falsify the
dowry allegation.
11.The appellant’s counsel tried to paint a picture as if the
deceased died due to homicidal violence. He took me through the
evidence of RDO and P.W.19 in this regard. The appellant appears
to be under impression that RDO had given a factual finding that
injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. It is not so. The
Revenue Divisional Officer was merely summarising the statements
and allegations made to him. The allegation of homicidal violence is
belied by the evidence of the Postmortem Doctor who was examined
as P.W.18. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the reports. It can be seen there
from that Krishna Priya died only due to hanging and there were no
other injures found on her body. The appellant’s counsel wanted to
emphasise the fact that the accused did not inform P.W.1
immediately after the occurrence.
12. From this solitary circumstance, one cannot come to
the conclusion that the accused are guilty. I do not find unnatural
in the conduct of the accused. A1 is the husband. A2 is the father-
http://www.judis.nic.in6/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
in-law. A3 is the mother-in-law. A4 is the sister-in-law. The
defacto complainant has not stopped with that. He had chosen to
implicate A5 who is the husband of A4. From this point, one can
come to the conclusion that deeply disturbed by the death of his
daughter, the appellant wanted to rope in every one. The learned
trial Judge, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record,
has come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish
its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even on a
careful re-appreciation on the entire evidence on record, I am not
able to take a different view. I find no merit in this appeal. This
criminal appeal stands dismissed.
19.08.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Cumbum North Police Station,
Theni District.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam.
http://www.judis.nic.in7/8
Crl.A.(MD)No.314 of 2019
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
Crl.A(MD)No.314 of 2019
19.08.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in8/8
