Madras High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Rep. By on 26 July, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.07.2023
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal. Appeal No. 386 of 2017
Rajesh Kumar .. Appellant
Versus
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District.
Cr.No.15 of 2014 .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the
order of conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in SC.No.226 of 2014
by a judgment dated 07.06.2017, by allowing this Appeal.
For Appellant .. Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For Respondent .. Mr.V.Meganathan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 07.06.2017 in S.C.No. 226 of 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017
2. The brief facts which are relevant to decide this case, are as follows:
2.1. The Accused was married to the younger daughter of P.W-1/ Devaki and P.W-2/Sundaram. They were married on 22.11.2012. At the time of marriage, P.W-1/Devaki and P.W-2/Sundaram had given their daughter 4½ sovereigns of gold jewels and half sovereigns of gold ring to the Accused.
After marriage, the Accused/Rajesh Kumar and Kalai Arasi, the younger daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 were residing along with the parents of the Accused. After some months, they set up a separate family. The younger daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2, became pregnant and delivered a male child. The Accused pledged the jewels of his wife, obtained loan and started a lathe workshop. After sometime, the Accused could not run the workshop successfully as he suffered losses. Therefore, he had closed the workshop. He never used to go for job. Kalai Arasi, the younger daughter of P.W-1 and P.W- 2 wanted her husband to go for job and earn for their living. His wife /deceased persuaded him to earn for a living but he did not go for job. Therefore, on 26.04.2014, she committed suicide in the house of her parents.
2.2. P.W-1 mother of the deceased Kalai Arasi, had preferred a complaint under Ex.P-1 to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur. Based on the complaint under Ex.P-1, P.W-9, Mrs.Kanimozhi, Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur Police Station, registered the FIR under Ex.P-6 in Crime No.15 of 2014 under Section 174 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 Cr.P.C. She forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Higher Officials. Original FIR was sent to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. On receipt copies of FIR, P.W-11 Mr.Ravisankar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar under Ex.P-4, Rough sketch under Ex.P-10 in the presence of witnesses P.W-8, Karthik and one Sedhu. He seized M.O-1 Saree used by the wife of the Accused to commit suicide from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex.P-5 Seizure Mahazar. The P.W-7 Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of copies of the FIR, proceeded to the Government Hospital and in the mortuary he had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the parents P.W-1 and P.W-2, the elder sister of the deceased P.W-3, Ilavarasi and P.W-4 Suresh, the brother-in-law of the deceased and other witnesses by name, Shanthi, A.Indira, S.Indira, Sivakumar and Shanmugam as panchayathdars. From the enquiry conducted by P.W-7 Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore it was found that the wife of the Accused committed suicide as the Accused did not go for job and had pledged jewels of the deceased to set up a lathe workshop. He had forwarded the inquest report under Ex.P-2. He had also sent requisition letter to P.W-10 Dr.Jayasingh, Professor of Forensic https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College, to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased. P.W-10 Dr.Jayasingh, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and had issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P-7 and also he had received the chemical examination report under Ex.P-9 based on which, he had issued final opinion of the Postmortem under Ex.P-8.
2.3. P.W-11 Ravishankar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, after obtaining the enquiry report from P.W-7 Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.P-2, examined the witnesses, recorded their statement including the statement of P.W-7 Revenue Divisional Officer, had altered the offence from Section 174 Cr.P.C to offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. The alteration report under Ex.P-11 was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. Then, he forwarded the case to P.W-12 Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, for further investigation. P.W-12 Mrs.Amutha, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. She had arrested the Accused on 20.05.2014 and sent him to judicial custody. She had also examined P.W-10 Doctor who performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased and Dr.Saravanapriya and recorded their statement. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, P.W-12 Inspector of Police had filed the final report before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. Since the offence is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 triable before the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, had furnished the copies to the Accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the Accused to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
2.4. On receipt of records and on appearance of Accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence framed charges under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of IPC. The Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered.
2.5. On the side of the Prosecution, P.W-1 Devaki and P.W-2 Sundaram – the parents of the deceased Kalai Arasi, P.W-3 Ilavarasi elder sister of the deceased, P.W-4 Suresh husband of P.W-3 Illavarasi, P.W-5, Rani and P.W-6 Radha – neighbours of the deceased, P.W-7 Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, P.W-8 Karthick, witness to the Observation Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar and Rough Sketch, P.W-9 Mrs. Kanimozhi, Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case in FIR under Ex.P.6 on the complaint of P.W-1 under Ex.P-1, P.W-10 Dr. Jayasingh who had performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased, P.W-11 Mr. Ravishankar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Investigation Officer and P.W-12 Mrs.Amutha, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, were examined. During trial, the Prosecution has cited totally 17 witnesses and out of which P.W-1 to P.W-12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 were examined and marked documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 and also marked M.O-1. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused had examined his friends Senthilkumar as D.W-1 and Balachandran as D.W-2. The Accused denied incriminating evidence against him. After closing of the defence witnesses, the arguments of the prosecution and the defence were heard.
2.6. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the evidence produced before the Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Coimbatore had acquitted the Accused for the charges under Section 306 of IPC, convicted the Accused for the charges under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced the Accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order sentence, the Accused had preferred this Appeal raising the following grounds.
(i) The witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are interested witness, the parents, elder sister and brother in law.
(ii) There is no evidence regarding demand of dowry to convict the Accused. Therefore the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 Sessions Judge convicting the Accused for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is perverse and is to be set aside.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
5. As per the case of the Prosecution, the Appellant was married to the deceased. The marriage was performed on 22.11.2012. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased had given 4 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels to the deceased and half sovereign of gold ring to the Appellant/Accused. After marriage, the deceased and the Appellant were residing along with his parents as a joint family. Subsequently, they set up a separate residence. As per the Prosecution case, the Appellant is stated to have pledged the jewels belonging to his wife and started a lathe workshop. After some time, the business in the workshop had not picked up. The Appellant suffered loss. Therefore, the said workshop was closed. Subsequently, he did not go for job. Meanwhile, the deceased became pregnant and she delivered a male child. The Appellant herein/husband of the deceased did not visit her and the child. Also he has not provided necessary money to run the family. Due to the fact that the Appellant had not redeemed the jewels pledged for which the wife is stated to have committed suicide on 26.04.2014 in the residence of her parents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore. Only two charges were framed. Charge-1 relates to Section 498(A) of IPC and Charge – 2 relates to Section 306 of IPC. The Prosecution had examined 12 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-12 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 and one material object as M.O-1 to prove the charges. The Accused had examined two witnesses as D.W-1 and D.W-2 to disprove the contentions of the Prosecution.
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that P.W-1 is the mother of the deceased, P.W-2 is the father of the deceased, P.W-3 is the elder sister of the deceased, P.W-4 is the husband of the elder sister, P.W-5 and P.W- 6 are the neighbours of the deceased and P.W-7 is the Revenue Divisional Officer / Executive Magistrate who had conducted enquiry, since the death occurred within seven years of marriage between the Appellant and the deceased. As per Dowry Prohibition Act, the Executive Magistrate is the authority concerned and therefore P.W-7 had conducted the enquiry related to the death of the deceased. P.W-8 is the Mahazar witness, P.W-9 is the Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the FIR. PW-10 is the Doctor who had performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 certificate under Ex.P.7. Ex.P.8 is his final opinion and Chemical Examination report under Ex.P-9. P.W-11 is the Investigation Officer who had conducted investigation. P.W-12 is also the Investigation Officer who had completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that during trial, the witnesses were not cross-examined. Subsequently, on behalf of the Appellant / Accused petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was filed and the same was allowed only with regard to recall of P.W-1 and P.W-12. P.W-1 is the mother of the deceased and P.W-12 is the Investigation Officer.
9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that P.W-1 was cross-examined regarding the defence of the Accused. She had conceded certain suggestions. She had out rightly denied certain other suggestions.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1. As per the evidence of P.W-1, examination in Chief, it supports the charges under Sections 306 and 498(A) of IPC, whereas in the cross-examination she evades direct question that the jewels were pledged by none other than the deceased only on the insistence of the Accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 to set up the lathe workshop. P.W-1, the mother of the deceased concedes that the marriage was an arranged marriage. The deceased and the Accused belong to different castes. She also concedes that after marriage both of them resided along with the parents of the deceased. She denied the suggestion of the defence that, at the time of marriage, the Accused was employed in Pricol Private Company in Coimbatore. Afterwards on the insistence of his wife/deceased, the Accused resigned his job in Pricol Company and started his own business by setting up the lathe workshop after obtaining the loan and after pledging the jewels of his wife. During such time, there was power shut down through out the State. Therefore, he was unable to execute the job work undertaken by him on time. Therefore, he lost his business and he was forced to close his workshop. Subsequently, he went for part-time job in R.R.Enterprises Company. Subsequently, he went for work as a daily wage worker. This was objected to by the deceased and P.W-1. This was because of P.W-4, Suresh, who was from a better socio-economic family background and better social status. The deceased felt humiliated. Therefore, she wanted the Accused to be with her family. She did not want him to work as a daily wage worker. This had caused depression in the Accused himself attempting suicide twice. Based on which, the case was registered by the Thudiyalur Police Station. The Thudiyalur Police had advised P.W-1 and the deceased not to insist the Accused not to go for daily wage work and not to seek immediate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 redemption of the pledged jewels, if he is not interested to live with the parents of the deceased. This portion of the suggestion of the defence was rejected by P.W-1 in her evidence in cross examination.
11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-3 elder sister of the deceased. She had stated that after closing the lathe workshop, the Accused did not go for job. When the deceased insisted, he attempted suicide. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of the neighbours P.W-5 and P.W-6 and to the evidence in cross-examination of P.W-12 Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officer had in the cross- examination admitted that P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3, have not stated anything regarding incrimination portion / improvements in the examination in Chief in their evidence. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Judge, on some misinterpretation of the evidence, had convicted the Accused under Section 498(A) of IPC and there are no sufficient materials to incriminate the Accused. The learned Judge had on assessment of evidence acquitted the Accused from charge under Section 306 of IPC whereas he had convicted the Accused under Section 498(A) of IPC. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 S.C.No.226 of 2014, dated 07.06.2017 is to be set aside.
12. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant stating that P.W-1 - mother, P.W-2 - father, P.W-3 - elder sister, P.W-4 - brother in law of the deceased, P.W-5 & P.W-6 who are neighbours of the deceased in their evidence deposed that the Accused pledged the jewels and started workshop. After suffering loss he closed the workshop. After closure of workshop, he was not going for job. Also after delivery of the child he had not visited them and not cared for hospitalisation of the child which was complained to, by the deceased to the neighbours P.W-5 and P.W-6. Therefore, there are sufficient materials available in the evidence of Prosecution based on which only, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore had convicted the Accused. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore on the basis of assessment of evidence is well reasoned judgment which does not warrant any interference.
Points of Consideration:
Whether the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 in SC.No.226 of 2014, dated 07.06.2017 is to be set aside as perverse?
13. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.K.Balasubramaniam appearing for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.V.Meganathan appearing for the Respondent. Perused the charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore and deposition of the witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-12, the cross examination of PW-1 and P.W-12 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 and evidence of defence witness D.W-1 and D.W-2 and also the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in SC.No.226 of 2014, dated 07.06.2017.
14. On consideration of the materials available before the trial Court, the learned Judge had acquitted the Accused from the charges under Section 306 of IPC and convicted the Accused under Section 498(A) of IPC. There are contradictions between the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-3, the elder daughter of P.W-1. When the defence suggested that the Accused had attempted suicide when there was panchayat held by the Thudiyalur Police, P.W-1 had denied the defence of the Accused. Whereas P.W-3 the elder sister of the deceased, stated in her deposition that after suffering loss, the Accused attempted suicide. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 colleague who had worked along with the Accused in Pricol Company had also deposed evidence as D.W-1.
15. In the light of those evidence, the learned Judge convicted the Accused as though the deceased committed suicide only due to dowry harassment which is found unreasonable and unacceptable. There is no evidence for the demand of dowry. In the light of the above circumstances, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in SC.No.226 of 2014 dated 07.06.2017 is found perverse and the Appellant is to be acquitted from the charge under Section 498(A) of IPC.
16. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Prosecution. The Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in SC.No.226 of 2014, dated 07.06.2017 is found perverse and the same is to be set aside.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in SC.No.226 of 2014 dated 07.06.2017 is set aside and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 Appellant/Accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. The bail bond executed by the Appellant/Accused is to be cancelled. The fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to the Appellant / Accused.
26 .07.2023 drl Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J, drl To
1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl. A. No.386 of 2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/16 Crl. Appeal No. 386 of 2017 26.07.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/16