SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vellaisami vs State Represented By on 3 January, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

Crl.A.No.403 of 2008

Vellaisami .. Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs

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
2004.

For Appellant : Mr.R.John Sathyan

For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran
http://www.judis.nic.in
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
2

JUDGMENT

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is the printed FIR. The investigation officer took up
3

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

documents.

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

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
5

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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
7

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.

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

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.

03.01.2019

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

AT

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

To

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police-Tiruvottiyur Range,
E-8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station,
Crime No.1634 of 2002,
Tiruvallur District.

3.The Government Advocate (Crl.side)
High Court of Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

AT

Crl.A.No.403 of 2008

http://www.judis.nic.in 03.01.2019

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