Madras High Court
Manivannan … vs The State Rep. By The on 7 July, 2022
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
Manivannan … Appellant
Versus
1. The State rep. by the
Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Virugambakkam Range,
Chennai – 92.
2. Ramachandiran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 r/w 401 (5) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in S.C.No.424 of 2011 on the file of the learned Mahila
Sessions Judge, Chennai and examine the correctness, legality and
property of the findings acquittal for all charges under Sections 498(a),
304(b) and 306 of I.P.C and revise the same.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1
: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by P.W.1, the father of the deceased girl, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 29.03.2012 in S.C.No.424 of 2011, in and by which, the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B or in the alternative of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. P.W.1's daughter and the second respondent/accused got married on 28.05.2009 and P.W.1 had given jewels, house hold articles etc., in connection with the marriage. On 22.11.2009, it is alleged that on account of a domestic quarrel, P.W.1's daughter came to their house and thereafter, on the next day, she returned to her house. However, since she did not pick up the phone calls, they got suspicious and they went to the house along with P.W.6, who is the wife of the house owner. They came to the first floor and they tried to open the door and after the door got opened, they saw the daughter of P.W.1 hanging in her bed room with her dupatta. She also left suicide note stating that nobody is the reason for her suicide and that she does not want to live in this world any more. P.W.1, therefore, lodged a complaint in Ex.P-1 stating that even before the death of her daughter, the second respondent/accused used to torture her by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 coming home in an inebriated condition and beating her and had also caused burn injuries to her with cigarettes and also tortured her to bring Rs.20,00,000/- from her family for his business. On the strength of the same, a case in Crime No.1196 of 2009 was initially registered under the provisions of Section 174 of Cr.P.C., which was later altered and taken up for investigation by P.W.11 and after completion of investigation, he laid a Final Report, proposing the accused guilty of the offences.
3. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.81 of 2011 by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and after the appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, upon which, the case is taken up on file as S.C.No.424 of 2011. After considering the material records of the case, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 498A and 304B or in the alternative Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. To bring home the guilt of the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 15 and produced the rose colour dupatta, used by the deceased for hanging, as M.O.1. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the suicide https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 note written by the deceased was marked as Ex.D-1. Thereafter, upon questioning about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 29.03.2012 acquitted the accused as against which the present appeal is filed by P.W.1, father of the deceased.
4. Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that, in this case, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on record, it is clear that there was dowry demand on behalf of the accused. The said fact was categorically stated in the earliest point of time i.e., in Ex.P-1 itself and it may be clear that P.Ws.1 and 2 and the family members have given the clear and categorical version in the R.D.O enquiry itself. As a matter of fact, the R.D.O had also concluded that the prima facie evidence points out the demand of dowry and the investigation is conducted by the Police in the matter. Thereafter, after clear-cut investigation and examination of the witnesses, the Police had filed a Final Report proposing the accused as guilty. Therefore, when there is clear-cut https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 evidence on record, the Trial Court, ought to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. There was no other reason for the deceased wife to commit suicide. This is a case of suicide within a period of seven years of marriage and therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also comes into play. The accused has not given any plausible explanation to rebut the presumption and therefore, considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for both the offences under Sections 498A as well as 304B of the Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact, the suicide note is denied by the P.W.1 and when the P.W.1 denied the signature and hand writing of his daughter and when the signature has not been verified by the Investigating Officer and the suicide note not having been produced on behalf of the prosecution, the same should not have been relied upon or taken into consideration, as the very veracity of the suicide note itself is doubtful. Therefore, he would pray that the appeal should be allowed and the accused should be punished with maximum punishment.
6. Per contra, Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 respondent/accused would submit that on a perusal of the suicide note, it is clear that the deceased wife has stated the reason that she was dejected in life and therefore taking the extreme step. P.W.1 himself had found the suicide note and the suicide note was mentioned in the original complaint, Ex.P-1 itself. This apart, the suicide note is also clearly mentioned in the earliest point of time in the R.D.O report also in which the veracity of the suicide note was not doubted. Therefore, when the deceased herself has stated that nobody is responsible for her death and that she is taking the extreme decision because she does not want to live further in this world and coupled with the other averments in the suicide note, it would demonstrate that she was depressed and just because they lost the victim to suicide, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 made a complaint with some allegations.
7. He would submit that until the death of the deceased, there was no Police complaint, given the seriousness of allegations of causing burn injuries, coming in an inebriated condition and beating the deceased wife daily, demanding dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, he would submit that in this case, the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and has acquitted the accused and therefore, there is a presumption of double innocence because the Trial Court has acquitted and there is nothing in this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 case so as to upturn the finding of the acquittal into one of guilt.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of this case. As far as the charge under Section 304B or in the alternative Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the deceased herself had left a suicide note. A clear perusal of the suicide note, she had not mentioned any demand of dowry or any intention or harassment on the part of the accused which had driven her to take this extreme step. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the suicide note is not proved in the manner known to law and the signature is denied.
9. It is this piece of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 makes their evidence doubtful. At the earliest point of time, in the complaint itself, P.W.1, i.e., the father of the deceased, himself has stated, categorically, as follows:-
“ //// fjitjpwe;J ghu;j;j nghJ vd; kfs; ghDkjp bgl;U:k;kpd;
Jg;gl;lhthy; ngdpy; Jhf;Fg;nghl;L
bjh';fpf; bfhz;oUj;jJ vd; kfs;
jdifg;gl vd; rht[f;F ahUk;
fhuzkpy;iy vd;W fojk; vGjp
bgl;U:k;kpy; cs;s fk;gpa{l;lu; kPJ
itj;jpUe;jhu;/ vdnt vd; kfspy;
gpnujj;jpd; kPJ eltof;if vLj;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/12
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
ey;ylf;fk; bra;a gpnujj;ij vd;dplk;
xg;gilf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;///”
10. Again, in the R.D.O enquiry, it is mentioned as follows:-
“ rk;gt ehshd 23/11/2009 md;W kjpak;
,we;J nghd ghDkjpapd; je;ij
tPl;ow;F te;J ghh;j;jjpy;. JpUkjp
ghDkjp Jhf;Fg;nghl;Lf; bfhz;L
,we;Jtpl;lhu; vd bjuptpj;jjd;ngupy;
tPl;L chpikahsuhd g";rhaj;jju;fspy;
xUtu; brd;W ghu;j;jhu; vd;Wk;. gpd;dh;
nghyP!py; jfty; bjuptpj;jjhft[k;.
,we;Jnghd jpUkjp ghDkjpapd;
,wg;g[f;F tujl;rid bfhLik vJt[k;
,Ug;gjhf g";rhaj;jhuh;fSf;F
bjupatpy;iybad;W thf;FK:yj;jpy;
bjuptpj;J cs;shu;fs;/
nkYk;. fhy";brd;w jpUkjp
ghDkjp ifg;gl. VdJ rhtpw;F ahUk;
fhuzkpy;iy vd vGjpa fojk; fhty;
Jiwapduhy; ifg;gw;wgl;L
tprhuizapd;nghJ xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ/
tprhuiz Koe;jgpd; nkw;go foj efy;
nfhg;gpy; itf;fg;gl;L mry; fojk;
fhty;Jiwaplk; nru;ff ; g;gl;lJ/”
Therefore, the veracity of the said suicide note cannot be doubted.
11. However, P.W.1, while deposing before the Court, had deposed as follows:-
“m/rh/M/1 g[fhupy; vd; kfs;
tPl;oy; blyptpc&d; nky; jw;bfhiy
Fwpg;g[ ,Ue;jjhf g[fhupy;
brhy;ypa[s;nsdh vd;why; mJ nghd;W
xU fojj;ij fhz;gpj;j nghyPrhu;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/12
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
fhz;gpj;J nfl;l nghJ mJ vd; kfs;
ifbaGj;J vd;W brhy;yptpl;nld;/
m/rh/M/4y; cs;s ifbaGj;J
vd;DilaJ jhd;/ M/rh/M/ vd;
ifahy; vGjpf;bfhLj;jJ jhd;/ me;j
g[fhupy; jw;bfhiy Fwpg;g[ gw;wp
Fwpg;gpl;L mjd; mog;gilapy; cily
nfl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;why; fhty; Jiwapy;
mt;thW vGjr;brhd;dhu;fs; ehDk;
vGjpndd;////”
Therefore, it is only this factor which makes the evidence of P.W.1 and in the same manner, P.W.2, unbelievable.
12. Thus, when P.W.6, before the Court, being the independent witness examined in this case and the other Panchayatdars, who were present even during the R.D.O enquiry, had mentioned that there seems to be no case of any dowry demand and they had seen the deceased and the accused living together without any quarrel, like any other husband and wife. It is, therefore, in the absence of any allegation either by way of complaint to any Police Station or even by way of oral information to any third party/relative, with regard to such serious allegation of causing injuries, dowry demand etc., the same being made only after the death by suicide, raises an iota of doubt. Therefore, on a cumulative reading and appreciation, the evidence on record is not inspiring this Court, so as to punish the accused. The finding of the Trial Court that the dowry demand https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 is not proved, cannot be interfered with, even though the finding of the Trial Court, that it is not directly in connection with the marriage, is acceptable to this Court. But, however, the very dowry demand appears to be doubtful in this case because of the following reasons:-
(i) There was no allegation prior to the commission of suicide;
(ii) P.W.1, even though stated that Rs.20,00,000/- was demanded, but mentioned in the complaint that the said amount is generally for business purposes and P.W.2 further stated that the purpose was for the business of erecting telephone towers. The said purpose ostensibly cannot be correct, as it is only the telephone companies who erect towers.
13. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, there is no ample evidence so as to upturn the finding of acquittal into one of guilt and finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
07.07.2022 Index : yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking order grs To https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 The Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs Crl.A.No.497 of 2019 07.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12