SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Selvam vs Ashok Kumar on 19 August, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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