Madras High Court
Marudhamuthu vs State Rep By on 6 January, 2023
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.301 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.A.No.301 of 2020
Marudhamuthu .. Appellant
.Vs.
State rep by
Inspector of Police,
Amaravathi Nagar Police Station,
Tiruppur District,
Crime No.48 of 2016. .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the judgment made in S.C.No.176 of 2016 dated
13.07.2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (FAC) Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murthi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2020 passed in S.C.No.176 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC) Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was working at Premier Mills at Poolangkinaru, where the sister of the accused one Ramya also working. While so, the deceased often visited the house of Ramya and in that way, the appellant and the deceased known to each other. The accused, who had one-sided love towards the deceased had often compelled the deceased to accept his love. On 23.03.2013 at about 5.30 p.m when the deceased was alone at her house, the accused who went to the house of the deceased pulled her hands, abused her in filthy language and assaulted on her right cheek. The accused also threatened her with dire consequences. Due to the same, the victim, who got humiliated and insulted, went into her house, took kerosene and poured over her body and set fire to herself. The accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby, the accused has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC.
3. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2016 against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as 'TNPWH Act' for the sake of convenience], https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 which was altered into Section 306 IPC. The respondent/Police on completion of the investigation filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet in P.R.C.No.13 of 2016. The accused entered appearance and after furnishing copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur taken the case on file in S.C.No.176 of 2016. When questioned, the accused denied the offences and thereby, based on the materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Subsequently, additional charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act.
4. In order to prove the case before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and 2 material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2.
5. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 were put before the appellant/accused and questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documentary evidence was produced.
6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the appellant is guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 506(ii) and 306 IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and he was convicted and sentenced as under :
Offence Sentence
Section 323 IPC Simple Imprisonment for 6 months
Section 506(ii) IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years Section 306 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years Section 4 of Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to TNPHW Act pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year.
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to be run concurrently
7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court by way of preferring the Appeal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a love affair between the appellant and the deceased. On the date of occurrence, when the victim was alone in the house, the appellant went to the house of the victim. Subsequently, the parents of the deceased noticed that the appellant was present in their house and scolded the deceased, due to which, the deceased got humiliated and insulted, took away her life by self-immolation. Therefore, the appellant has not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that after the incident, the victim was admitted in the hospital and she made a statement before the Police and the same was accepted as a complaint and a case was registered, in which, the deceased has not stated anything about the appellant that he forced her to accept his love proposal. However, in her dying declaration she has stated that the appellant tortured her to accept his love proposal and due to that she committed suicide. Thus, there was a contradiction in the evidence of the victim. Therefore, only based on the dying declaration, the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced, as the victim gave two different versions one before the police and another before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. He https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and the statement made by the victim before the police are contrary to each other. However, the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and only on the ground of sympathy, erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant, which warrants interference of this Court. He further submitted that the appellant said to have given a confession statement, but the same was not marked by the prosecution, which itself creates a doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is the younger brother of the friend of the victim and he is four years younger than the deceased. The appellant, who had one-sided love towards the deceased, had used to often pick up frequent disputes with the deceased to accept his love. While so, on 23.03.2013, when the deceased was alone at her house, the accused insisted her to accept his love and also beaten her. Due to that, the victim took the extreme step of taking away her life by self- immolation and she sustained burn injuries. She was admitted in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 hospital, where the statement of the victim was recorded by the police and a case was registered against the appellant. Subsequently, dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the learned Magistrate and the same was attested by the Doctor. Therefore, from the statement of the victim and the evidence of P.W.1/mother of the victim, the prosecution proved that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide by self-immolation. The medical evidence also clearly shows that the deceased died due to burn injuries. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Sections 323, 506(ii) and 306 IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
11.This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a final Court of fact finding, which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 give an independent finding. Accordingly, this Court has re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence produced before this Court.
12. The mother of the victim was examined as P.W.1 and she has clearly deposed that the appellant is the brother of one Ramya, who is the friend of the victim. When the deceased went to the house of the said friend, she acquainted with the accused. On 23.03.2016, P.W.1 and her husband went to attend their work and the victim was alone in the house. At that time, the appellant came to their house and threatened her daughter that if she failed to marry him he would kill her and also the person who would marry her. The accused also pulled her daughter's hand and slapped on her right cheek. The deceased felt humiliated rushed into her house and pour kerosene and set fire on her body. When P.W.1 and her husband returned home, their neighbours were trying to put off the fire. Immediately, they took her daughter to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipettai. Thereafter, on 24.03.2016 the victim was referred to Government Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment, where she succumbed to burn injuries on 06.04.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020
13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant and the victim loved each other and hence, he went to the house of the victim. At that time, the parents of the victim came to their house and noticed both the appellant and the victim together in their house and they scolded her. The victim felt ashamed and took the decision to take away her life by self-immolation. The appellant never induced the victim for self-immolation. However, based on the statement given by the victim before the respondent/Police a false case has been foisted against the appellant. Further, the dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the learned Magistrate, in which the victim has stated that the appellant tortured her to accept his love proposal and due to that she attempted suicide. The dying declaration was attested by the Doctor, which was marked as Ex.P8. The Doctor/P.W.5 who conducted postmortem on the victim stated that the victim died due to burn injuries and the postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P9 and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P10.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was a contradiction and discrepancies in Ex.P3/statement of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 the victim before the police and in her dying declaration/Ex.P8 made before the learned Judicial Magistrate in the presence of the Doctor P.W.5. However, the facts remains that due to the act committed by the appellant, the victim was forced to take the decision of self-immolation. From the statement of the victim made before the Judicial Magistrate the prosecution has proved its case and the same was corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. Though there is a discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the victim before the police and in her dying declaration, but the discrepancies and contradictions are not major contradictions, which would not go to the root of case of the prosecution.
15. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1/mother of the victim, P.W.5/Doctor, Ex.P3/statement of the victim Ex.P8/dying declaration of the victim, Ex.P9/postmortem report and Ex.P10/inquest report, the prosecution has proved that the victim died due to burn injuries and the appellant is the cause for the death of the deceased.
16. This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a final Court of fact finding and re-appreciated the entire evidence and arrived at independent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 just conclusion that the appellant has committed the charged offences. However, considering the mitigating circumstances of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC imposed by the trial Court is to be modified to five years rigorous imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC imposed by the trial Court is to be modified to five years rigorous imprisonment, which will meet the ends of justice. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act stand unaltered.
17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the above modification with regard to quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 506(ii) and 306 IPC i.e. the appellant is sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, concurrently and in respect of Sections 323 and 4 of TNPHW Act the conviction and sentence are unaltered. If the appellant/accused is not in duress, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the custody of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11/13 Crl.A.No.301 of 2020 accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any, and the sentences of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
06.01.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ms To
1.The Sessions Judge (FAC) Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Nagar Police Station, Tiruppur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records, if any, to the
High Court, Madras. | trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.12/13
Crl.A.No.301 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
CRL.A.No.301 of 2020
06.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.13/13