Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.09.2022 Pronounced on : 11.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
Jeyaraman,
S/o.Balakrishnan,
Aviyur,
Kariyapatti (via),
Virudhunagar, ... Appellant/Accused
/versus/
The State Rep. by,
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palladam Police Station,
Crime No.1228 of 2007 ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to
admit this appeal on file call for the connected records from the Lower Court,
set aside the judgment and conviction of the Lower Court and thereby
acquitting the appellant in S.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the Mahalir
Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, dated 14.03.2014 and to
pass order.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Rajan, for
Mr.S.Parameswaran
For Respondent : Mr.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
J U D G M E N T
Page Nos.1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
The appellant was found guilty of offence by the trial Court for
offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C had preferred this appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him.
2. As per the prosecution, the appellant Jeyaraman and deceased
Selvi got married on 17.02.2006 at Chinnakarupasamy Temple, Aviyoor,
Kariyapatti Talui, Virudhunagar District. They had matrimonial home in the
rented premises at Thiruppur and later, shifted to Palladam. On 24.12.2007, a
case in Crime No.1228 of 2007 was registered against this appellant for offence
under Section 498-A of I.P.C., based on the complaint given by Saratha, the
mother of deceased Selvi and mother-in-law of the appellant alleging that her
daughter, who married the appellant been subjected to dowry harassment by her
husband and the Sreedhana articles given to her were pledged by her husband.
In this regard, a complaint to the Aruppukottai All Women Police Station
(AWPS) was lodged. They enquired and compromised them. Thereafter, they
shifted their family to Palladam. A week before the complaint, there was a
quarrel between her daughter and the appellant and therefore, her daughter
Selvi tried to hang herself to commit suicide. The appellant saved her and
Page Nos.2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
brought her to the maternal home. After 2 days, she brought her daughter back
to Palladam and advised the appellant as well as her daughter not to quarrel and
live peacefully. However, on 23.12.2007 at about 9.30 p.m., she received a
phone call from one Sampath resident living next to her daughter's house at
Palladam, informing that, her daughter has self immolated herself and
struggled for the life at hospital. She came to the hospital and saw her daughter
was not able to talk. She suspect that, her daughter attempted to commit
suicide due to unbearable of the torture caused by Jeyaraman, the appellant
herein for demanding dowry. Hence, sought for action.
3. The said Selvi subsequently succumbed to the injury on
02.01.2008 at about 21.15 hrs. The charge was altered to Sections 498-A and
304-B of I.P.C. and on completion of investigation, Final Report was filed.
4. The trial Court framed charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C., for
causing cruelty, demanding money and jewels and abetting her to commit
suicide. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and
marked 13 Exhibits and 2 Material Objects.
Page Nos.3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
5. After appreciating these evidences, the trial Court sentenced him to
undergo 3 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 6 months S.I. for
offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced him to under 7 years R.I
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, one year S.I for offence under Section
304-B of I.P.C. The period of sentenced was ordered to run concurrently and
the period of imprisonment already undergo ordered to be set off under Section
428 of Cr.P.C.
6. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the trial Court failed
to take note of the fact that there is no direct or reliable evidence to incriminate
the appellant for causing cruelty or abetting the deceased Selvi to commit
suicide. Admittedly, it was a love marriage between the appellant and the
deceased. They were living happily in Tiruppur and later shifted the family to
Palladam. The deceased Selvi, due to depression had suicidal tendency and
twice she attempted to commit suicide and saved by this appellant. Even on
23.01.2007, when Selvi self immolated herself, the appellant tried to put off the
fire and took her to hospital. The evidence of P.W.1, who is the mother of the
Page Nos.4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
deceased Selvi is neither direct nor reliable. She, in her complaint stated about
the previous complaint to Aruppukottai (AWPS) Police but no evidence
produced by the prosecution to substantiate the said allegation. Though Selvi
was admitted in the Hospital on 23.12.2007, she succumbed to injury only on
02.01.2008 for nearly 10 days, she was struggling for life and there is no
evidence to show that she was not fit to give statement. However, the
prosecution has failed to record her statement to know the truth. Likewise, the
prosecution has not sought for enquiry by RDO, though the incident took place
within 7 years of the marriage. Had the prosecution requested RDO to conduct
enquiry, he would have dispassionately enquired and given a report that there
was no evidence for dowry harassment. Having failed to conduct RDO enquiry
which is the statutory requirement, the prosecution relying upon the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.4 who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and two relatives of
the deceased Selvi and a person not residing at the place of occurrence had
convicted the appellant.
7. The trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the owner of the
Page Nos.5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
premises which was occupied by the deceased and the appellant had not
supported the case of the prosecution to prove dowry harassment. Likewise, the
neighbouring resident P.W.6 has turned hostile who is suppose to speak about
the alleged dowry harassment.
8. P.W.7, the other neighbouring resident, who in fact informed
P.W.1 about the incident over phone had deposed that, soon before the incident
the deceased requested him to call her mother and gave the number. When she
tried to contact the mother of the deceased, it was out of reach and therefore,
the deceased was not able to talk with her mother. This incident was happened
at 8.00 p.m thereafter, the deceased Selvi has went to her home and by 8.30 p.m
she self immolated herself. The appellant was informed by P.W.7 about this
and sought help to shift Selvi to the Hospital. The appellant was along with his
wife in the hospital. P.W.8, Dr.Chandra, who admitted Selvi in the Hospital
also deposed that she was brought to Palladam Hospital by her husband, the
appellant herein and she gave first aid to her and shifted to Coimbatore
Government Hospital.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
Page Nos.6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
the prosecution failed to prove the dowry harassment or any abetment by the
appellant, forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Further, it is submitted that
the failure of the prosecution to prove the allegation of dowry harassment
through independent witness and omission to conduct RDO enquiry is fatal to
the case of the prosecution which has been overlooked by the trial Court.
Hence, sought for acquittal by reversing the judgment of the trial Court.
10. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
State submitted that, P.W.1 who is mother of the deceased was informed about
the incident over phone by one Sampath (P.W.7). The appellant and the
deceased shifted to the present address at Palladam hardly 2 months before the
incident and therefore, there was no possibility of the neighbours to know about
the quarrel. P.W.7 had deposed that the deceased was desperate to call her
mother and sought his help to contact her mother over cell phone. Since her
mother could not be contacted, the deceased has returned to her home and had
committed suicide. It is incorrect to claim that the deceased Selvi suffered
depression and had suicidal tendency. It is the cruelty caused by the appellant
herein forced her to commit suicide. The deceased, who married the appellant
Page Nos.7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
out of love got frustrated and committed suicide. It is the conduct of the
appellant who made her frustrate and forced her to take the extreme decision,
hence the appellant rightly convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and
304-B of I.P.C.
11. Section 498-A of I.P.C and explanation makes it clear that any
wilful conduct which is of such a nature likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide or harassment of the women with a view of coerce her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security will
attract punishment under this section for a term not exceeding to the period of
three years and shall also be liable with fine.
12. Section 304-B of I.P.C deals with death of a woman otherwise
than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any of her relative of the husband in connection with demand of
dowry such death shall be called dowry death. Therefore, the ingredient to
attract these two penal provisions are cruelty in connection with demand of
Page Nos.8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
dowry or harassment seeking the property or valuable security.
13. In this case, going through the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of
the deceased, she has explained in her deposition the Sreedhana articles given
to her daughter at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the appellant had
pledged all the Sreedhana articles, jewels and spend lavishly. Thereafter,
demanded further sum of Rs.50,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold and driven her
out from the matrimonial home. She has further deposed that her daughter was
treated in the hospital for the injury and thereafter, she took her to Palladam and
left her at the matrimonial home. Even thereafter, the accused came to her
house and quarrelled demanding dowry. Unbearable of the torture, her daughter
gave the complaint at Aruppukottai All Women Police Station. At the police
station, the appellant agreed he will not torture Selvi any further and took her
back. He also promised to return the jewels within 2 months. Then again, after
one month, her daughter was driven out from the home by the appellant
demanding dowry. After one month, her daughter joined the appellant at
Palladam and she was living with him. P.W.1 advised both her daughter and the
appellant not to quarrel with each other and promised to give 5 sovereign of
Page Nos.9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
gold jewels within 5 or 6 months. Within one week, her daughter immolated
herself on 23.12.2007.
14. To believe her testimony, the prosecution ought to have atleast
collected the complaint alleged to have been given to the All Women Police
Station, Aruppukottai (AWPS), regarding dowry harassment. This fact been
disclosed in the complaint (Ex.P.1) itself, but the prosecution has failed to
produce this document to prove harassment demanding dowry prior to the death
of Selvi. It is stated by P.W.1 that, 5 sovereigns jewels given at the time of
marriage was pledged by the appellant. The prosecution has not collected any
evidence regarding the gold sovereigns. In the charge framed by the trial
Court, it is specifically stated that the Sreedhana jewels were pledged with
Ambika Finance at Palladam by the appellant which has caused mental and
physical cruelty to the deceased Selvi, hence, offence under Section 498-A of
I.P.C is attracted. To prove the above said charges that Sreedhana jewels were
pledged at Ambika Finance, the prosecution has not placed any documents or
examined any witness to this effect.
15. The prior complaint and the pledge are two facts very crucial to
establish dowry harassment or cruelty to attract offence under Section 498-A of
Page Nos.10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
I.P.C. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to prove these
two facts. Unless, the facts that there was earlier a complaint of cruelty and
pledging of Sreedhana jewels to met the lavish spending of the appellant, the
ingredient to punish a person under Section 498-A of I.P.C fails.
16. When there is no proof of dowry demand, the reason for
committing suicide has to be examined. On examination of the evidence, this
Court finds that, in the cross examination of P.W.1 the contradictions and
embellishment in her deposition adding new facts which was not found in the
previous statement been elucidated. Further, it is also elucidated in the cross
examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the mother and father of the deceased, it is
suggested, the deceased Selvi had gynaecological problem for past few years,
which delayed her getting conceived. Though P.W.1 alleges that Selvi was once
conceived, but got aborted, when the appellant cruelly attacked her and Selvi
was admitted in the hospital, the prosecution has not produced any proof for the
same. The earlier attempt to commit suicide by hanging is found in the
complaint Ex.P.1. In the absence of evidence that soon before the self
immolation on 23.12.2007, Selvi was subjected to cruelty renders the
Page Nos.11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
prosecution case against the appellant for offence under section 304-B of I.P.C
is unsustainable.
17. The best evidence about any cruelty soon before her death could
have been only from the neighbours residing in and around the residence of the
appellant and the deceased. When none of the witnesses had spoken about that
the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C
more particularly, the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct inquest by
RDO and no proper explanation by the Investigating Officer for not requesting
RDO to conduct the inquest, renders the case of the prosecution more
suspicious. The five Panchayatars for the inquest conducted by the police as
found in the inquest report which is marked as Ex.P.13, they are all from
Virudhunagar, Aviyoor Village and none of them from Palladam village where
the incident took place. Ex.P.13, the Inquest Report of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police indicates that on 05.04.2007, Selvi attempted to
commit suicide by consuming cow dung powder. She was taken to hospital for
treatment and survived. On 28.11.2007, she again attempted to commit suicide
by hanging and she was saved. While the Investigating Officer had information
Page Nos.12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
about the previous attempt to commit suicide and treatment given, the omission
to collect those informations also dents the credibility of the prosecution case.
That apart the deliberate omission of the Investigating Officer not requesting
the RDO to conduct the enquiry and absence of plausible reason to the said
omission warrants the reversal of the judgment of conviction.
18. For the said reason, this Court finds that there is reasonable doubt
about the prosecution case and the witnesses have not proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment passed by the Learned
Magalir Neethimandram, Tiruppur in S.C.No.73 of 2012, dated 14.03.2014 is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is Allowed. Fine amount
paid if any shall be refunded to the appellant. Bail bond executed by the
appellant stands cancelled.
11.10.2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
bsm
To,
1. The Mahalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur
Page Nos.13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J
bsm
Pre-Delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.No.220 of 2014
11.10.2022
Page Nos.15/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis