1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.A.No.595 of 2009
1.Udhayakumar
2.Rajamani
3.Rangasamy … Appellants
Vs.
State Represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Periyanaickanpalayam
Sub-division, Coimbatore District. … Respondent
Prayer:
Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to call for
the records pertaining to S.C.18/2008 on the file of the Sessions
Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Coimbatore and set aside the
Judgment and Order of Conviction dated 03.06.2009 recorded therein
by the said court convicting the Appellants/accused for the offences
under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under sections 498A, 306
and 304B IPC and sentencing them undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence U/s 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for six months U/s 498A IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo
2
Simple Imprisonment for six months U/s 306 IPC, to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in
default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months U/s 304B of
IPC.
For Appellants : Mr.R.MD.Nasrullah
for M/s.K.V.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this appeal seeking to set aside the
judgment dated 03.06.2009 made in S.C.No.18 of 2008 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Coimbatore.
2.The appellants herein are the accused 1 to 3 respectively, in
the case in S.C.No.18 of 2008. The brief case of the prosecution is as
follows: The first accused is the husband of the deceased, the second
accused is the mother – in – law of the deceased and the third accused
is the father – in – law of the deceased. The marriage between the
first accused and the deceased Sulochana was solemnized on
01.06.2006 at Mettupalayam Vanabadrakaliamman Temple’s Sakthi
Mahal, as per the Hindu Customs and Conventions. The said marriage
was arranged by the elders.
3
3.The deceased is the daughter of P.W.1 and sister of P.W.3.
The deceased had studied upto X Standard and was working in
Saradha Mills. P.W.3 was also working in the said Saradha Mills. At
the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave four sovereigns of gold ornaments
and household articles to the deceased and the marriage expenditure
was equally shared by P.W.1 family and accused family. After
marriage, the first accused and the deceased started to live a joint
family life along with the second accused and third accused.
4.The deceased suffered acute stomach pain from her attaining
puberty and for the said disease, the deceased had undergone
treatment at Elango Hospital situated at Mettupalayam. The stomach
pain got aggravated after the marriage. On 10.03.2007 at 11.45 a.m.,
the deceased suffered unbearable stomach pain and the first accused
gave tincture which is a medicinal solution in an alcohol form for
subsiding the pain. Even thereafter, the deceased had stomach pain.
Hence the first accused made efforts to take her to the Hospital in his
bicycle. At that time, the said Sulochana/ deceased poured kerosene
all over her body and set fire by herself. On hearing her cry, the first
accused extinguished the fire by pouring water all over the body. In
the meanwhile, A2 and his brother reached the spot and with the help
4
of the said persons, A1 took his wife/ deceased to the Coimbatore
Medical College Hospital in an Auto Rickshaw for treatment.
5.On 10.03.2008 at 12.10 p.m., the deceased Sulochana was
brought by A2 before the Medical Officer attached to the Casualty of
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. When the Medical
Officer examined the said Sulochana, she has stated that she
sustained burn injuries by pouring kerosene over her body by herself
at around 11.45 a.m., at her house. She was conscious at that time.
The Medical Officer found that she suffered 65% to 70% of burn
injuries and after giving first aid, the Medical Officer admitted her in
the Burns Ward. The proceeding was incorporated in the Accident
Register and Ex.P17/ copy of accident register was issued. Soon after
the admission of Sulochana at Burns Ward, the Medical Officer sent
Ex.P16/ intimation to the Outpost Police Station attached to
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore.
6.P.W.11/ Grade-I Police Constable attached to Thudialur All
Women Police station received the intimation over phone about the
particulars of Ex.P16 from the Outpost Police Station, Coimbatore
Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. Based upon the said intimation,
5
P.W.11 went to the Outpost Police Station and received Ex.P16 in
I.R.No.1331. Thereafter, she went to MS-II Burns Ward and examined
Sulochana and obtained Ex.P12/ statement and also obtained the left
thumb impression on it. Thereafter, P.W.11 returned to the Police
Station and on the strength of Ex.P12, registered a case in Crime No.5
of 2007 under Section 309 of IPC. The First Information Report
registered by P.W.11 was marked as Ex.P13.
7.P.W.12/ Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.
During the course of investigation, P.W.12 examined P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.7 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, P.W.12 went to the
spot of occurrence and prepared Ex.P4/ observation mahazer in the
presence of P.W.7 and Ex.P14/ rough sketch.
8.While the injured was undergoing treatment, the Medical
Officer attached to the Burns Ward sent a requisition to the learned
Judicial Magistrate, to record the dying declaration of Sulochana.
P.W.9/ Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, on 10.03.2007, after
carrying out the necessary formalities recorded Ex.P5/ dying
declaration, wherein, the declarant has stated that for the past one
week she suffered acute stomach pain and therefore, she poured
kerosene over her body and set fire herself. P.W.9 also obtained
Ex.P6/ certificate from the Medical Officer and after completion of the
6
proceedings forwarded the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Coimbatore on 12.03.2007.
9.On 15.03.2007, the injured Sulochana succumbed to injuries
at 01.00 a.m. and the death intimation was sent to the Police Station.
Based upon the death intimation, the case in Crime No.5 of 2007 was
altered from under Section 309 of IPC to under Sections 498-A, 306
and 304-B of IPC.
10.P.W.13/ Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the case for
further investigation and since the death of Sulochana occurred within
seven years of marriage, he resorted for an inquiry by the Revenue
Divisional Officer under Sections 174 and 176 of Cr.P.C. and sent the
case file to the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate action.
11.P.W.10/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, received the
case file on 15.03.2007 and took up the same for investigation.
During the course of investigation, he went to the Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital, Coimbatore, and in the presence of Panchayatars,
conducted inquest over the dead body and also examined P.W.1,
P.W.3 and the Panchayatars and recorded their statements under
Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and also prepared Ex.P10/ inquest report and
7
Ex.P11/ inquiry report.
12.In their statements, P.W.1 and P.W.3 had stated that the
accused caused harassment and cruelty for not bringing the dowry
demanded by them and they also ill treated the deceased by
suspecting her fidelity and due to the unbearable cruelty caused by the
accused, the said attempt was done by the deceased. Hence, P.W.10
requested P.W.13 to conduct inquiry to find out the real cause of death
and also sent a requisition to the Professor, Forensic Medicine
Department, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital to conduct autopsy
over the body of Sulochana with a request to send the postmortem
report for necessary action.
13.P.W.2/ Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital and one Dr.Diraviyaraj/ Tutor in Forensic Science
Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital received the requisition
of P.W.10 on 15.03.2007 at 01.00 p.m. The body was identified by
P.W.8/ Woman Head Constable. During autopsy the Medical Officer
preserved the internal organs of the deceased and sent the same to
the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Coimbatore through P.W.8.
P.W.2 and Dr.Diraviyaraj issued Ex.P1/ postmortem report.
8
14.Thangambhavani, Scientific Assistant Grade-II and Mupdathi,
Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government examined the internal
organs and did not detect any poison over the same. To that effect
she issued Ex.P2/ chemical analysis report. Based upon the
postmortem report and upon considering Ex.P2, P.W.2 and
Dr.Diraviyaraj issued Ex.P3/ opinion, wherein, they opined that the
cause of death was due to the burns and its complications.
15.When P.W.13 examined P.W.1 and P.W.3, they had stated
that the accused requested the deceased while undergoing treatment
not to disclose the reality as it would cause problem to the accused
and the deceased in turn requested them not to disclose anything
against the accused as she if survived has to live with the accused.
Hence, they did not make any statement against the accused. But
infact the accused joined together and caused unbearable cruelty to
the deceased for the non-fulfilment of the dowry demand and the
accused also suspected the fidelity of the deceased and ill-treated her.
16.On 28.07.2007, P.W.13 completed the investigation of the
case and laid the final report against the accused under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of
IPC.
9
17.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C and explained about the incriminating circumstances available
against them in the evidence, they denied the same as not true.
Thereafter, trial was proceeded against the accused.
18.On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined
as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 17 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.17. On the side of the accused no witness was examined,
however, five documents were marked as exhibits Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.
19.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants/ accused
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-
A, 306 and 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 1 year
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default
to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to undergo 2 years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo
6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC; to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment
for the offence under Section 306 of IPC; and to undergo 10 years
10
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default
to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 304-B of IPC. The sentences of imprisonment alone were
ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, the appellants / accused have filed this appeal before this
Court.
20.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that in her dying declaration, the deceased has categorically
stated that she suffered acute stomach pain and therefore, she poured
kerosene over her body and set fire herself. The deceased has not
implicated any of the accused in the said offence. Hence the evidence
let in by P.W.1 and P.W.3 before P.W.13 that the accused requested
the deceased while undergoing treatment not to disclose the reality as
it would cause problem to the accused and the deceased in turn
requested them not to disclose anything against the accused as she if
survived has to live with the accused and hence, they did not make
any statement against the accused, is nothing but false. The said
tutored statements were made inorder to implicate the accused in the
offence.
21.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
11
further submit that there in nothing available on record to show that
the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide,
particularly, there is no iota of evidence to implicate the appellants 2
and 3/ accused 2 and 3 in the present crime. Accordingly, he prayed
for acquittal of the appellants/ accused.
22.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that after treatment if the deceased was alive, necessarily she has to
live with the accused. Hence, in dying declaration the deceased did
not implicate the accused in the above said crime and during
treatment she requested P.W.1 and P.W.3 not to disclose anything
against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 clearly
demonstrate that due to the torture and harassment of the accused,
the deceased was forced to take the extreme step of committing
suicide. The above act itself would amount to instigation. Hence, the
well considered judgment of the Trial Court need not be interfered
with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
23.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
24.In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be
12
analyzed as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt on the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25.It is not in dispute that on 10.03.2007 the deceased
sustained burn injuries and she was taken to the Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital for treatment. When the Medical Officer examined
the deceased, she has stated that she sustained burn injuries by
pouring kerosene over her body by herself at around 11.45 a.m., at
her house.
26.It is also relevant to note here that immediately after the
occurrence, the first accused extinguished the fire by pouring water all
over the body. Thereafter, he also took the deceased to the
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for treatment. P.W.9/ Judicial
Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, on 10.03.2007, recorded Ex.P5/ dying
declaration, wherein, the deceased has stated that for the past one
week she suffered acute stomach pain and therefore, she poured
kerosene over her body and set fire herself.
27.Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 clearly indicate that
initially, there was no dispute inbetween the accused. After A1 lost his
job, he started cruelty by demanding additional dowry from the
deceased. Initially P.W.1 has taken care of her daughter by giving
13
Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- frequently. However, their evidence makes
it clear that they did not make any allegation as against the accused 2
and 3 and they made allegations as against A1 only.
28.Further P.W.5/ brother of P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed
that after marriage, he visited the deceased at her matrimonial home
and at that time, the deceased cried as if she was pushed into a well
and that the accused suspected her fidelity and she exposed the
sufferings made by the accused.
29.The evidence of P.W.1 and the dying declaration does not
corroborate with each other. On perusal of the entire evidence, the
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 clearly indicate that there was
dowry demand by A1. Immediately after A1 lost his job, he started
harassing the deceased by forcing the deceased to bring additional
dowry from P.W.1. Except dowry demand to implicate the first
accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under
Sections 498-A of IPC, there is no ingredients available to implicate
him under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC.
30.Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or aiding a
person to commit suicide. Without any positive act, instigating or
aiding the person to commit suicide, conviction cannot be passed
14
merely on the basis of some statement. In the absence of any
evidence implicating the first accused under Sections 306 and 304-B of
IPC is not sustainable one. There is also no ingredients available to
implicate the accused 2 and 3 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act and under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC.
31.The very same issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the decision reported in (2013) 4 SCC 131 (Bakshish Ram
and another Vs. State of Punjab), the relevant portion of which
reads as follows:
“18.We have already noted Section 304B
IPC and its essential ingredients. Section 113-
B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the
case in hand. Both Sections 304-B and 113-B
of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry
Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
view to combat the increasing menace of
dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence
Act reads as under:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry
death.- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman has been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the
Court shall presume that such person had15
caused the dowry death.”
Explanation.- For the purposes of this
section, “dowry death” shall have the same
meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).”
As per the definition of “dowry death” in
Section 304B IPC and the wording in the
presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act,
one of the essential ingredients amongst
others, in both the provisions is that the
woman concerned must have been ‘soon
before her death’ subjected to cruelty or
harassment “for or in connection with the
demand for dowry”. While considering these
provisions, this Court in M.Srinivasulu vs. State
of A.P., (2007) 12 SCC 443 has observed thus:
“8. ‘4. … The presumption shall be raised
only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must
be whether the accused has committed the
dowry death of a woman. (This means that the
presumption can be raised only if the accused
is being tried for the offence under Section
304-B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for,
or in connection with any demand for dowry.
16
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.’*”
20.Another relevant aspect to be noted is
that it was appellant No.1, husband of the
deceased who took the deceased to the
hospital and it was he who informed the police
as well as parents of the deceased. It is also
brought to our notice that he did not make any
attempt to run away from the place of
occurrence.
21.In view of the above discussion, we
are satisfied that the prosecution failed to
establish its guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
the trial Court and the High Court committed
an error in convicting the appellants and the
same are liable to be set aside. Since appellant
No.1 has already served out the period of
sentence of 7 years, no further direction is
required. However, since appellant No.2 is on
bail, her bail bonds shall stand discharged. The
appeal is allowed.”
32.Considering all the aspects, the prosecution miserably failed
to establish that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassed in connection with demand of dowry. However, I
of the view that there are ingredients available as against the first
17
appellant/ first accused to convict him under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A of IPC and there is no
ingredients available to implicate him under Sections 306 and 304-B of
IPC. Hence, this Court acquits the first appellant/ first accused from
the charge under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC. This Court is also
inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the first appellant/ first
accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under
Sections 498-A of IPC.
33.Further, there is no ingredients available to implicate the
appellants 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC.
Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment dated
03.06.2009 in S.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Coimbatore, in respect of appellants 2
and 3/ accused 2 and 3 are concerned.
18
34.In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in respect
of the first appellant/ first accused. The first appellant/ first accused is
convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under
Sections 498-A of IPC. The first appellant/ first accused shall undergo
1 year rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default shall undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and shall undergo 1 year
rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default shall
undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section
498-A of IPC. The modified sentences of imprisonment alone imposed
on the first appellant/ first accused shall run concurrently. The first
appellant/ first accused is acquitted from the charge under Sections
306 and 304-B of IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed on the
first appellant/ first accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Needhimandram, Coimbatore, vide judgment dated 03.06.2009 made
in S.C.No.18 of 2008 under Sections 306 and 304-B of IPC are hereby
set aside. The Trial Court as well as the Investigation Officer shall take
necessary and expeditious steps to secure the custody of the first
appellant/ first accused to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
35.The criminal appeal is allowed in respect of the appellants 2
and 3/ accused 2 and 3. The conviction and sentence as against the
19
appellants 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 in the judgment dated
03.06.2009 in S.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Coimbatore, are set aside. The
appellants 2 and 3/ accused 2 and 3 is acquitted from the charge
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-
A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by them is
ordered to be refunded to them. The bail bonds and sureties, if any,
executed by them, shall stand terminated/ discharged.
24.01.2019
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
20
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram,
Coimbatore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Periyanaickanpalayam
Sub-division, Coimbatore District.
21
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
Crl.A.No.595 of 2009
24.01.2019
