IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.A.No.403 of 2008
Vellaisami .. Appellant/Sole Accused
State Represented by :
Assistant Commissioner of Police-Tiruvottiyur Range,
E-8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station,
Crime No.1634 of 2002,
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, against the judgment dated 21.04.2008 convicting the
appellant under Sections 498-A, 306-B of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo (i) 1 year rigorous imprisonment in respect of
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each with a default sentence of 2 months rigorous
imprisonment (ii) 9 years rigorous imprisonment in respect of Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with
a default sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge – Ponneri – Tiruvallur District in S.C.No.277 of
For Appellant : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused
against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District dated 21.04.2008
made in S.C.No.277 of 2004.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law
of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. The marriage
between the accused and deceased (Sarasvathi) was performed on
21.06.2002. At the time of marriage, P.W.3 gave seedhana of 7
sovereigns gold. When, P.W.1 visited the deceased house on 07.09.2002,
the deceased informed P.W.1 that the appellant/accused is demanding
Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a van and everyday consuming alcohol and
harassing the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 pacified the deceased and
warned the accused and left her house. On 08.09.2002, the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself, in respect of which P.W.1 lodged
the complaint Ex.P1.
3.P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint Ex.P1
from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.1634/2002 under Section
174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is the printed FIR. The investigation officer took up
the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence, prepared
observation mahazar under Ex.P7 and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P8
and recovered material object MO.1 (Rope) and he has also conducted
inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and issued
inquest report as Ex.P3. After examining the medical officer and other
witnesses, the offence was altered into one under Section 304B IPC. The
alteration report is marked as Ex.P10.
4.P.W.11 took up the case for further investigation and arrested
the accused on 10.09.2002. Thereafter, he laid a final report as against
the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC.
5.Based on the materials, the trial Court framed the charges for
the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC against the accused
and the accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the
side of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P10
were marked and MO1 (Rope) were marked.
6.When the trial Court examined the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidence available against him, he
denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, the
accused either chose to examine any witnesses nor marked any
7.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, has found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections
498A, 306 and 304B IPC. Accordingly, convicted the accused for the
offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months of the offence
under Section 498A IPC and for the offences under Sections 306 and
304B IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years and
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence the appellant/sole
accused has preferred this appeal.
8.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the respondent.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there
is no material whatsoever available on record to prove the charges under
Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC against the accused. Ex.P1 complaint is
totally contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. Admittedly, the
deceased committed suicide at her husband’s house on 08.09.2002.
Except P1, no other witnesses has spoken about the alleged cruelty or
harassment by the accused and the ingredients required, implicated the
offence under Sections 306, 304B IPC has not established before the
Court. However, the trial Court without considering the material,
convicted the accused, which is unsustainable. Hence, the learned
counsel prays for acquittal the appeal.
10.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for
the respondent would submit that P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased and
P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. The accused demanded Rs.50,000/-
for purchase of van and the said demand was corroborated between
P.W.1 and P.W.3 who is none other than the sister and mother of the
deceased and RDO report also confirmed the demand of additional dowry
from P.W.1 and further P.W.1 in her evidence indicated that the accused
everyday consuming alcohol and harassed the deceased, for unbearable
torture the deceased committed suicide on 08.09.2002 that the
prosecution case has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11.In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be
analysed as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, it is not disputed that
P.W.1 is residing at Manali and the deceased residing at Thiruvetriyur and
the marriage was performed in the year 2002. At the time of marriage,
seven sovereigns of gold were given as seedana to the accused.
12.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, after the marriage they
lived happily for one month. Thereafter, during the month of aadi, P.W.1
brought her deceased sister and after a month the deceased sister sent
back to the matrimonial home in the month of avani. Thereafter, one
Saturday, the deceased called P.W.1 over phone and cried, on verification
of P.W.1 the deceased sister switched off the phone. Immediately,
thereafter, P.W.1 went to the deceased house, at the time the accused
also present in the house and after entering the house, the accused
demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchase of vehicle. P.W.1 the sister of the
deceased refused to borrow money from her father. Thereafter, P.W.1
pacified the couple, warned the accused and left the deceased house.
However, on 08.09.2002 she received information that her sister
committed suicide. The said statement was corroborated by P.W.3 with
regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/-. However, on close perusal of P.W.1
and P.W.3, there is no ingredients with regard to the cruelty or instigation
to force the deceased to commit suicide soon before the death.
13.The other witnesses P.W.3, mother of the deceased and
P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, did not disclose any of the
ingredients of the offence and other prosecution witnesses namely P.W.4
and P.W.5 turned hostile and P.W.6 a medical officer issued post-mortem
certificate Ex.P2, certified that the death was due to hanging and P.W.7 is
RDO who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3,
confirmed that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and the accused
harassed the deceased by demanding Rs.50,000/-.
14.Considering the above materials would disclose that though
P.W.1 and P.W.3 corroborated in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/- for
the purchase of vehicle, there is no evidence or material available in
respect of abetment to commit suicide.
15.In the present case, except P.W.1 and P.W.3, no evidence is
available. Even on perusal of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is seen that they
deposed only the demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of vehicle.
However, the other ingredients are required to implicate the accused in
respect of the offences under Sections 306 and 304B IPC, which are not
found in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3.
16.Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the
prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt in respect of implicating the accused for the offence under Sections
306 and 304B IPC. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and the
criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant is set aside.
17.However, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, the
materials available are that the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- and
harassed the deceased for demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of
vehicle. Hence, this Court convict the accused under Section 498A IPC to
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri,
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police-Tiruvottiyur Range,
E-8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station,
Crime No.1634 of 2002,
3.The Government Advocate (Crl.side)
High Court of Madras.
Crl.A.No.403 of 2008