Madras High Court
Karuppiah vs State Represented By on 18 October, 2019
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 18.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.A.(MD)No.7 of 2014
Karuppiah : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town North Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.292 of 2010) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment passed in S.C.No.53
of 2012, dated 17.12.2013 by the Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandha Raj
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.53 of 2012, dated 17.12.2013 by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandaram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.
2.According to the prosecution, the accused Karuppiah married Krishnaveli, daughter of Karunakaran and after marriage they were residing in the house of Chinnadurai at Gopal Nagar Extension, Dindigul and Krishnaveni gave birth a male child by name Sundaresan and that on 21.02.2010 morning tonsuring ceremony of Sundaresan was performed at Kottai Mariamman Kovil Temple, Dindigul, but the accused did not attend the function and that on 21.02.2010 evening, the persons from whom the accused borrowed loan for constructing his new house came and demanded the accused to repay the loan, since he defaulted in settling the loan and thereafter, on the same day evening, there was a wordy erupted between the accused and his wife and the accused scolded his wife and due to it, she by using a nylon rope hanged herself from a rod available in the roof for fixing fan and thereby committed suicide. The Inspector of Police attached to Dindigul http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Town North Police station has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.
3.In the trial court, 14 witnesses were examined and 8 Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no documents was marked. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant/sole accused is before this court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.The contention raised on the side of the appellant/accused is that there are lot of contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the alleged harassment made by the accused and there was no valid evidence for convicting http://www.judis.nic.in 4 the accused under Section 306 IPC and there was no nexus between the death of the deceased and the accused and prays that the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
6.In this case, PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the deceased Krishnaveni. In respect of the occurrence, PW1 gave the complaint and PW2 witnessed to the occurrence. PW1 in his complaint and evidence stated that on 25.07.2007, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized and at the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold jewels were given as Sreedhana to their daughter and 5 sovereigns of gold was given to the accused and Utensils to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the deceased and after the marriage, the accused worked as a Watchman in a Kalyana Mandapam and in one portion of the Mandapam, the accused and the deceased were residing. Due to the wedlock, one male baby was born and when the child was at the age of one and half years old, they vacated the portion in the Mandapam and thereafter, they lived in the rented house at Gopal Nagar and then the accused joined as Watchman in P.S.N.A College and her daughter invited them for tonsuring function of her son. Due to some work, he has not attended that function and for that http://www.judis.nic.in 5 function, the accused has also not gone and prior to that function, his daughter requested him to give two Lakhs as loan in order to repay the loan obtained for the construction of the new house by her husband and she agreed that she will repay the said amount within two months and then to celebrate the house warming ceremony, the deceased and the accused decided to buy new clothes and it was opposed by his daughter and due to it, wordy quarrel arose between them and the accused scolded the deceased by saying that “cd;dhy; vdf;F vg;gt[k; gpur;rid jhd; eP brj;jhy; jhd; vdf;F gpur;rid jPUk; vd;Wk; v';fhtJ ngha; rht[”. On the next day, he heard through phone from his brother-in-law that his daughter committed suicide by way of hanging in a nylon rope.
7.PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 in her evidence stated that on 25.07.2007, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized and at the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of jewels were given as sreedhana to her daughter and 5 sovereigns of gold were given to the accused and utensils to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the deceased and after the marriage, the accused worked as a Watchman in a Kalyana Mandapam and in one portion of the Mandapam, the accused and http://www.judis.nic.in 6 the deceased were residing. Due to the wedlock, one male baby was born and when the child was at the age of one and half years old, they vacated the portion in the Mandapam and thereafter, they lived in the rented House at Gopal Nagar and then the accused joined as Watchman in P.S.N.A College and her daughter invited them for tonsuring function of her son. Due to some work, she has not attended that function and for that function, the accused has also not gone and prior to that function, her daughter requested to give two Lakhs for repayment of loan obtained for the construction of new house by her husband and she agreed that she will repay the said amount within 2 months and then to celebrate the house warming ceremony, the accused decided to buy new clothes and it was opposed by the deceased and due to it, wordy quarrel arose between them and the accused scolded the deceased by saying ''[cd;dhy; vdf;F vg;gt[k; gpur;rid jhd; eP brj;jhy; jhd; vdf;F gpur;rid jPUk; vd;Wk; v';fhtJ ngha; rht[”. On the next day she heard through phone from her brother in law that her daughter committed suicide by way of hanging in a nylon rope.
8.PW3 is the father of the accused. PW4 is the mother of the accused. Both of them turned hostile and did not support the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 case of the prosecution. PW3 and PW4 stated during their evidence that there was transaction between one Ramalingam and the deceased and the Ramalingam failed to pay Rs.89,000/- to the deceased and cheated her and when it was questioned by the deceased, wordy quarrel arose between the deceased and the Ramalingam and due to it, she committed suicide.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the accused, while cross examining PW1 put a question that one Ramalingam failed to give Rs.89,000/- to the accused in respect of the construction of the new house and due to it, dispute arose between the deceased and the Ramalingam and due to it, the deceased committed suicide.
10.On perusal of the cross examination of PW3, it is seen that he has stated that in respect of the non-payment of the money by Ramalingam, already one complaint was given. But the copy of the complaint was not filed in this case.
11.PW3 and PW4 have not stated that who has given the complaint as against the Ramalingam. Already, it was admitted by PW1 and PW2 that the accused only constructed the new building. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
12.Further, PW1 during his cross examination admitted that prior to the occurrence, there was dispute only between the accused and the deceased. PW4 also in cross examination stated that the transaction was only between Ramalingam and the deceased. To prove that due to the non payment of money by Ramalingam, quarrel arose between the deceased and Ramalingam, no witness was examined and no document was filed.
13.Further, PW3 during his cross examination admitted that his son has not stated that Ramalingam cheated him. No contra evidence was let in on the side of the accused to prove that due to wordy quarrel between the Ramalingam and the deceased, she committed suicide. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the accused stating that only due to the quarrel between the Ramalingam and the deceased, the deceased committed suicide is not at all acceptable.
14.PW5/Murugesan is the Auto driver and nearby resident of the deceased Krishnaveni and he is cited as occurrence witness. PW5 deposed that he invited the deceased to attend the fire pot taking process and at that time, the deceased came to the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Arulmighi Kottai Mariamman temple and she performed tonsuring function of her son Sundaresan and at that time, she saw that the deceased was crying. For the above function, her grand-parents came and after that function, he took the deceased and her grand- parents in his Auto and in the next morning, he heard that the deceased died by way of hanging in a nylon rope.
15.PW5 during his cross examination stated that except the grand-parents of the deceased, all other relatives of the deceased were not present in the said function and he has not stated why he has not attended the tonsuring function of his son. Hence, it reveals that already there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and only due to it, the accused has not attended the function. From the evidence of PW5, it reveals that there was a dispute between her and her husband prior to the tonsuring function.
16.PW6/Thirumani, who is the grand-mother of Krishanaveni has stated that on 21.02.2010, she attended the tonsuring ceremony and the deceased told that neither her husband nor other relatives attended the function, so she was totally upset. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 After sometime on the same day, the accused returned home and started quarrelling with his wife in respect of purchasing new clothes for the house warming ceremony. She further admitted that during the wordy quarrel, the accused scolded the deceased and angrily uttered that she often created problems and only her death could bring mental peace, so she should go elsewhere and die.
17.PW6 during the cross examination stated that prior to the occurrence, the accused demanded two Lakhs from her grand- daughter and further PW6 during her cross examination stated that the deceased only opposed not to buy new clothes for the ceremony. While cross examining PW6, the learned counsel for the accused put a question that already the deceased borrowed some amount and gave the amount to Ramalingam, but the said Ramalingam has not built the house properly, but he demanded huge amount from the deceased and due to it, quarrel arose between Ramalingam and due to it, the deceased committed suicide, but it was denied by PW6.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
18.PW7 was cited as eyewitness. PW7 during his evidence stated that during the year 2007, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized and the accused demanded three Lakhs from him for the construction of new house and for that, he has given two Lakhs and borrowed one Lakh from his friend and when he went to the house of the accused and asked him to repay the amount already borrowed from him, at that time wordy quarrel arose between the deceased and the accused and the accused scolded the deceased “eP ,Ue;jhy; bjhy;iy jhd; brj;J ngh ngh vd;W brhd;dhh;” and further he heard that the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging in a nylon rope.
19.PW7 during his cross examination stated that he never went to the house of the accused and asked the deceased to repay the amount already borrowed from him and further, he has not stated that due to the amount borrowed from him, there was wordy quarrel arose between the deceased and the accused and further PW1 to PW3 has not stated that PW7 went to the house of the accused and demanded money from the deceased and due to it, wordy quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased. Hence, it was not established on the side of the accused that due to the non http://www.judis.nic.in 12 payment of Rs.89,000/- by PW7 to the deceased, wordy quarrel arose between the deceased and Ramalingam and due to it, the deceased committed suicide.
20.The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased was examined as PW10 and he found the following external and internal injuries:-
“A moderately nourished female body lies on its back, symmetrical, eyelids closed, tongue – protruded, mouth and nose – bleeding.
A patterned abrasion of 3 x 2 cm(rope mark), 6 cm below right mastoid process in the neck, extending obliquely 7 cm from chin in the mid line crossing mind line runs to the left 7 cm below the mastoid process.
2) A knot mark seem behind the nect at the centre – 3 x 2 cm abrasion.
3) Total Patterned abrasion length – 32 cm – On cut section injury – parchment like appearance. Multiple echrymoses person in neck region cut section – Internal carolid artery shows intina tear.
Postmortem examination:
Thorax- No # ribs, Heart – chamber right full, left empty. Hyoid bone intact. Blood clot + both horns, stomach undigested rice 300 gm and lungs, liver spleen and kidneys congested. Uterus empty, skull and membrane – intact. Brain congested. As viscera was sent to chemical examination.
21.The Doctor/PW10 opined that the deceased appeared http://www.judis.nic.in 13 to have died due to asphysa. PW1 to PW3 and PW6 and PW7 stated that due to the scolding by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging. Hence, the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW6 and PW7 is corroborated with the medical evidence of PW10.
22.The learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that there was no nexus between the death of the deceased and the accused and there was no instigation on the part of the accused to drive his wife to commit suicide and hence, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out. For that the learned counsel submitted a ruling reported in (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 190 in S.S.Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and the relevant para is extracted hereunder:
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
23.At this juncture it is necessary to refer Section 306 of I.P.C 306. Abetment of suicide — “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
24.On careful perusal evidence of PW1 to PW7, it reveals that the accused borrowed money from several persons for construction of a new house and for the celebration of house warning ceremony, the accused decided to purchase new clothes.
But it was opposed by the deceased stating that due to the non payment of amount already obtained as loan was not repaid by the accused and it is not necessary to purchase new clothes and due to it, wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased and in that occurrence, the accused scolded and due to it, she committed suicide.
25.The conduct of the accused particularly the incident in which he scolded his wife on 21.02.2010 that “cd;dhy; vdf;F vg;gt[k; http://www.judis.nic.in 15 gpur;rid jhd; eP brj;jhy; jhd; vdf;F gpur;rid jPUk; vd;Wk; v';fhtJ ngha; rht[” as she created all the problems, so she should go and die” was lingering in her mind and she committed suicide on the next day. So the words uttered by the accused against his wife such as “she was the root cause of all problems and her death only would bring peace and she should go and die” would clearly indicate the intention and mens rea of the accused that he abetted suicide of his wife.
26.The prosecution has categorically established through oral testimony of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW7 that there was frequent domestic quarrels in the family of Krishnaveni and she was ill-treated inhumanly by her husband. Further, the accused did not take care of his wife and he was non co-operative and remained without rendering any assistance to his wife and he was non co- operative and remained without rendering any assistance to his wife for the tonsuring ceremony of their son Sundaresan conducted on 21.2.2010 and shifted entire responsibility on the shoulders of his deceased wife. Further, on the same day, the accused once again started wrangle with his wife by fiercely uttering that ''she was the cause for all problems and she should die to bring peace”. The manner of scolding by accused abetted and instigated http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Krishnaveni to end her life and she committed suicide by hanging. So it is clear that the accused had the mens rea of abetting and instigating the offence of committing suicide by his wife.
27.On careful perusal of evidence of witnesses and documents produced it reveals the prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court rightly come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty under Section 306 of IPC, which does not require any interference by this court. However, considering the fact that the appellant is the breadwinner of the family, the punishment imposed on the appellant requires modification.
28.In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed on the appellant by the trial court is reduced to 2 years RI. In other aspects, the findings of the trial court is confirmed. The appellant/accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the credit of his son, failing which the punishment imposed by the trial Court is restored.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 For reporting compliance, post the matter after one week.
18.10.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er http://www.judis.nic.in 18 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J.
er To,
1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.7 of 2014 18.10.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in