Madras High Court
M.Jayalakshmi vs Srinath on 8 July, 2022
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.496 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.496 of 2019
M.Jayalakshmi .. Appellant
Vs
1. Srinath
2. Leelavathi
3. State rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police
Washermenpet Range, Chennai.
(Crime No.1568 of 2005). .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Sections 371 r/w 401(5) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahalir Neethimandran, Chennai-104, dated 14.09.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ravikumar
For Respondents : M/s.S.N.Thangaraj
Mr.R.Azhagumani
for respondents 1 and 2
Mr.S.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for respondent 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/27
Crl.A.No.496 of 2019
ORDER
P.W.1, in S.C.No.112 of 2007 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai is on appeal before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai-104 dated 14.09.2011, in and by which, both the accused in this case namely, Srinath, the first accused, the husband of the deceased and Leelavathi, the mother-in-law of the deceased, was acquitted for the offenses under Section 498 A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On 01.08.2005, when P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty at H-3, Thandaiyarpet Police Station, P.W.1, that is the appellant herein, appeared before the Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that the first accused and her daughter Rajalakshmi got married on 01.09.2004 and they were living in Bengaluru and while so, the second accused, being the mother-in-law, had spoken ill and also not allowing her to be with her husband and was constantly nagging her and doubting her and therefore, her daughter came to her house and even after 100 days, since the first accused did not come and take her back, on 01.08.2005, early morning at about 4:00 AM, she had gone to the pooja room with a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 nylon rope and hanged herself. They noticed the same about 7:00 AM and hence, they are giving the complaint. On such complaint, a case in Crime No.1568 of 2005 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And thereafter, after receipt of the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the case was altered into one as under 498 A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and P.W.12 took up the case for investigation and laid the final report. The same was taken on file as PRC No.78 of 2006 by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate and after appearance of the accused as per Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon furnishing of copies, the case was committed to the learned Principle Session Judge, Chennai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file as SC No.112 of 2007 and was made over to the Trial Court. Upon perusal of the records, the Trial Court framed the charges under Section 498 A and 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.
3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and then marked Exhibits P.1 to P.20. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record under Section 313 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, on behalf of the defense, D.W.1 was examined and Exhibits D.1 to D.7 where marked. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and learned counsel for the accused and by a judgment dated 14.09.2011, acquitted both the accused of both the charges. Aggrieved by the same P.W.1, being the mother of the victim, has laid the appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.N.Thangaraj and Mr.R.Azhagumani, learned counsel for the respondent accused and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant taking this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 mother, P.W.2 brother, P.W.6 father and the suicide note left by the victim, would submit that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and also the suicide note clearly establishes that there was a demand of dowry. The suicide note also clearly makes allegations against the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 accused of the cruelty committed by her. Therefore, when there is a dowry demand and cruelty committed on her and when P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6, have clearly spoken about the same, and when the same is also corroborated by the suicide note, the action of the first accused in supporting his mother in demanding dowry and also not caring about her even after she returned home for 100 days, certainly amounted to cruelty and therefore, both the accused ought to have been convicted for the offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Similarly, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gumansinh and ors. vs The State of Gujarat 1 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh and ors. vs The State of Haryana2 and the judgment in Surendran vs The State of Kerala3, learned counsel would submit that the omission of the first accused in not taking care of the complaints of the deceased when she was together and with a common intention, colluding with his mother and demanding dowry and not caring even to visit her or take her back even after 100 days, only forced the victim to take the extreme step. Given the background of the 1 MANU/SC/0596/2021 2 MANU/SC/0963/2019 3 AIR 2022 SC 721 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 victim, nature and circumstances of the case, the victim had no other go than to commit suicide. The said feeling of the victim is clearly expressed in the suicide note. Therefore, when there is continuous harassment and continuous omissions and commissions which drive the victim towards commission of suicide, then, the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have convicted both the accused in respect of the offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code also. Learned counsel, in support of his argument, would specifically rely upon paragraph 14.1 in the judgment of Ude Singh and ors. vs The State of Haryana2:
''....
14.1. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chandigarh4, a three-Judge bench of this Court held that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not satisfactorily proved so as to implicate and punish the accused for the same. The facts of the case leading to the aforementioned decision had been that the deceased was married to the 2 MANU/SC/0963/2019
4 (2001) 9 SCC 618 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 accused for about a year. The deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire in the kitchen. On the day of incident, the accused had reused to take the deceased to her sister's house and in quarrel that ensued, the accused husband told the deceased wife that she was free to do whatever she wished to and to go wherever she wanted to. The accused attempted to save her by putting a bedsheet around her body and himself suffered burns consequently. The deceased had written a letter to her husband accused in her diary that he had made her free to go whenever she liked but she was not having any place to go and now she was free of her word not to commit suicide. In her dying declaration too, she stated that she had a quarrel with her husband who told her to go wherever she wanted to and thereafter, she set herself ablaze. The accused appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 306 and 498 A IPC and his conviction was upheld by the High court. In further appeal, after examining the evidence led in by the parties and taking note of all the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 surrounding factors, this Court, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 498 A IPC, set aside his conviction for offence under Section 306. This Court observed and held inter alia, as under:
19. .... Presumably the accused may have said some such thing-you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had “freed”her she though impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband's wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the Trial Court misspelt out the meaning of the expression attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the accused had made her free to commit suicide. Making the deceased free-to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she wished, does not and cannot mean even by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 stretching that the accused had made the deceased free “to commit suicide”as held by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court.
20. ..... Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The continued course of conduct created such cirumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.
A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. .... In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal5, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each 5 (1994) 1 SCC 73 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 case and the evidence adducted in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences, in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged a abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.'' and paragraph 32 and 39 of the judgment or the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gumansinh and ors. vs The State of Gujarat1:
''....
32. From the above observations, it becomes clear that to attract the applicability of Section 113-A of the 1 MANU/SC/0596/2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 Evidence Act, three coditions are required to be fulfilled:
(i) The woman has commited suicide,
(ii) Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage,
(iii) The charged-Accused had subjected her to custody.
33. ....
34. ....
35. ....
36. ....
37. ....
38. ....
39. A Two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Vithal Patil vs. State of Karnataka and ors.6 in almost idential facts and circumstances, has observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under:
Moreover, admittedly the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is therefore, 6 (2014) 11 SCC 516 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 clearly attacted to this case. Presumption cintemplated therein must spring in action. This provision was introduced by Criminal Law Second Amendment Act, 1983 to resolve the difficulty to proof where married women are forced to commit suicide by incriminating evidence is difficult to get as it is usually available within the four walls of the matrimonial home.
In this case, the prosecution has led evidence to establish cruelty and harassment cased to the deceased which is rightly taken into account by the High Court. Thus, the foundation for the presumption exists. The appellant, however, has led no evidence to rebut the presumption. Therefore, it can be safely concluded in the facts of this case that the appellant abetted the sucide of the deceased.'' and paragraph 17, 20 and 21 of the judgment in Surendran vs The State of Kerala3:
3 AIR Online 2022 SC 721 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 ''....
17. From the above pronouncements, and the wordings of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it appears that the test for admissibility under the said section is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved. Rather, the test appears to be that the cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the 'circumstances of the transaction' relating to the death.
18. ....
19. ....
20. A reading of the above pronouncemenbts makes it clear that, in some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect of cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498 A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There are, however, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 certain necessary preconditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted.
21. The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter. This would include, for instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498 A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304 B of the IPC. It must be noted however that as long as the cause of her death has come into qestion, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility.'' Learned counsel would also place strong reliance on the presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act, as the suicide in this case is within a period of seven years and the allegation is made against the husband and the mother-in-law and therefore, he would submit that this is a fit case where the findings of the Trial Court are perverse in nature and therefore this Court should interfere in this appeal against acquittal.
7. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 even though the prosecution has not filed an appeal, upon fair investigation, the charge sheet was laid and all the possible materials were collected and laid before the Court, and therefore, he would concur with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appelant.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, taking this Court through the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 and also the evidence of P.W.8 Doctor, would submit that in this case, at the earliest point of time, there was no any allegation of dowry. A reading of the First Information Report and the complaint given by P.W.1 only states that there was indirect nudging towards payment of dowry. The cumulative reading of evidence would show that the allegation was that the mother-in-law had asked for a diamond nose ring as Diwali 'seer'.
Therefore, he would submit that in this case there was no any demand of dowry and until the death of the victim girl, there was no police complaint. Neither the accused were confronted by P.W.1 mother and P.W.6, either by going to Bengaluru or through some common friends and relatives. The allegations are made for the first time after the suicide of the girl. He would further submit that a bouquet of allegations of varying nature from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 verbally abusing, to asking to clean the toilet, to giving homeopathy medicine for fever, to complaining that she is doing her work slowly, etc are made which by itself would make the case of the prosecution unbelievable. On the other hand, as far as the mother-in-law is concerned, she has been behaving kindly with the deceased and was showering her with gifts on all occasions. A reading of cross examination of P.W.1 mother and P.W.2 brother would clearly demonstrate the same. This apart, he would submit that during the period of 100 days, even though it is the case of the prosecution that the first accused did not even contact the deceased, the prosecution witness, namely P.W.2 was cross examined in detail in this regard, when he admitted that only through his phone, his sister used to talk to the first accused and when he was questioned, whether there was any phone call or SMS, P.W.2 did not have the guts to say no but, on the other hand, he evaded the answer by saying that “I do not know”. Therefore, this by itself would clearly demonstrate that the first accused did not neglect the deceased for the said 100 days.
9. Learned counsel for the accused would further submit that further the defense, by examining D.W.1 Doctor and marking the prescriptions, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 has proved that there was some illness also on the part of the victim girl and these medicines are relaxants. Therefore, it would be clear that there was some problem with the victim girl herself. In the cross examination, P.W.1 mother had lied before this Court by stating that it is because of Malaria and the father also lied by stating that it was Typhoid, but he would submit that a perusal of the medical slips and the nature of medicines prescribed, it would be clear that it cannot be for both Malaria or Typhoid. Therefore, he would submit that the girl also had some problem.
10. This apart, learned counsel by taking this Court through the cross examination of the Revenue Divisional Officer, would demonstrate that the Revenue Divisional Officer had in the cross examination admitted the several questions put on behalf of the defense, wherein, it is stated that none of those allegations, now made by P.W.1 before the Court, where stated to him. A cross examination of the Investigating Officer also shows that the entire evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.6 are a contradiction, inasmuch as no such statements were made to the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. Therefore, he would submit that in the teeth of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 the same, the findings and conclusions reached by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with. Regarding the suicide note, learned counsel would submit that the same was not proved in the manner known to law and therefore he would submit that the same is invented by the family members of the victim. Even otherwise, he would submit that the suicide note does not point out any fault as to the instigation or cruelty in this regard.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of the case.
12. A perusal of Exhibit P.3 suicide note, inspires the confidence of this Court that it is not a concocted one and at the earliest point of time, before the Revenue Divisional Officer itself, the suicide note is mentioned. Therefore, the suicide note has to be taken as true. But, however, a cumulative reading of the entire suicide note, the victim girl has not made the first and second accused as the reason for her committing suicide. She said that she thinks herself as less mortal and the reason for all that is happening to her. She says that even though she and her husband can live happily, her mother-in-law is not accepting the fact that they could live https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 happily and at every point was behaving differently. She would speak well in the presence of her husband but after her husband is gone, she would behave differently. Therefore, she thinks that she is permanently into this place where she cannot put up with this life and therefore she thinks that the only solution is to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, she writes the note on 30.07.2005 and even states that the next day is the 100th day and she begs the pardon of everyone. She also states that she worshiped her husband like God. Therefore, cumulative reading of the four page long suicide note, it would be clear that she was a very sensitive girl and took the extreme step as she was not happy with her married life. Therefore, the same by itself cannot be enough to convict the respondent accused for the offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chandigarh4 has categorically held in paragraph 20 as to what the meaning of the word “instigation” is and it is useful to extract the paragraph No.20 of the said Judgment as follows:-
4 (2001) 9 SCC 618 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
It would be clear that, to convict a person for the abetment of suicide, the prosecution has to prove there was instigation coupled with intention of the accused. A perusal of the aforementioned three judgments relied upon by the appellant is also held that not only the instigation, that is goading, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 enticing or any positive act, the act of continuous harassment which would drive the victim to commit suicide would also be taken as abetment. Therefore, considering the suicide note, coupled with the earliest complaint given by P.W.1 and statements made before the Revenue Divisional Officer, I am of the view that in this case, the prosecution has proved neither of the both and therefore, even though some acts are complained and some omissions are complained, I am of the view that none of it can be termed as instigation, either by commission or by omission, and therefore, the offence under Section 306 is not made out against both the respondent accused.
14. Regarding the offence under Section 498 A, perusal of the statement made before the Revenue Divisional Officer by P.W.1 and the suicide note, and the complaint and even the evidence before the Court, the entire fault points out towards the second accused, mother-in-law, and no express allegations of cruelty is made against the first accused husband. The only allegation is that after the victim girl came to Chennai, even after 100 days, he did not care to visit or talk to the young wife. In this regard, even though it is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 that there was 100 day punishment which was given to the victim in the sense that she was sent home forcibly for 100 days for bringing dowry, the defense has marked Exhibit D.4, marriage invitation, and has cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the same and it was stated that the victim return to Chennai only for attending the said marriage. This apart, the evidence of P.W.2 in the cross examination about the telephonic conversation is as follows:
''......vd; mf;fhtpw;F vd;W jdpahf nghd;
,y;iy/ Kjy; vjphp vd; mf;fht[ld;
ngrntz;Lk; vd;why; vd;Dila bry;ngd;
Kykhfj;jhd; ngRthh; vd;why; rhp jhd;/
28/06/2005 md;W vd;Dila bry;nghd; Kyk; vd;
mf;fhit vjphp 3 jlit miGj;J ngrpdhh;
vd;why; bjhpahJ/ Kjy; vjphpapd; bry;nghdpy;
,Ue;J vd;Dila bry;nghdpy; 28/06/2005 kw;Wk;
01/07/2005 njjpfspy; v!;/vk;/v!; mDg;gp itj;jhh; vd;why; mJg;gw;wp bjhpahJ/ 31/07/2005 md;W Kjy; vjphp mth; bry;nghdpy; ,Ue;J vd; bry;nghDf;F Tg;gpl;lhh; vd;why; mJg;gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ....'' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019
15. Further the suicide note does not make such allegation against the husband. As a matter of fact, the only allegation made against the husband in the suicide note, is as follows:
''....Mdhy; brd;w ,lk; ed;F ,y;iy/ kPs Koahj ,lj;jpy; brd;w ehd; vdf;F xnu solution ,Jjhd;/ mth; te;jpUe;jhy; ,e;j Kot[ khw;w gl;L ,Uf;fyhk;/ flt[Sf;nf khw;w g[of;fhj nghJ vd; bra;a/ ,d;W 30/07/2005 vGJfpnwd;/ ehis 100th day flt[s; vd;
kwzj;ij mUs;g[wpal;Lk;/......''
16. Thus the allegations to the contrary by the P.W.1 mother and P.W.6 father cannot be believed and does not inspire confidence of this Court. Further, in this case, it is pertinent to state here that till the commission of suicide by the victim, admittedly, there was neither any confrontation by the parents of the victim with the husband or their parents, nor there was any police complaint. Further, no attempt https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 whatsoever, was made in the 100 days to even involve the common friends or relatives or bring about any amicable settlement. Therefore, I am of the view that there is absolutely no material on record to convict the first accused husband even for the offence under Section 498 A.
17. As far as the second accused mother-in-law is concerned, it is to be noted by this Court that there are allegations against her in the suicide note of the girl. The note says that she behaved differently in the front of the husband and after her husband is gone, she used inappropriate words. The earliest point of time, P.W.1, even after the death, had made the allegation that the first accused was discussing even the intimate things about the physical relationship, with his mother and is indirectly asking for dowry. A closer examination of this allegation, it would be further clear that the second accused seemed to have asked for a diamond nose ring as Diwali seer. The suicide note itself clearly states as follows:
''.....tujl;riz vd;d ntz;Lk; vd;W eP';f
nfl;L bfhLj;J ,Uf;fZk;/ fy;ahzj;jpy; rpy
eilKiw vd;d vd;W nfl;L bra;jpUf;fDk;/....'' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019
18. It is also on record from the cross examination that the second accused mother-in-law has been periodically giving gifts to her daughter- in-law in terms of jewellery, saree etc. Therefore, a cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record, it can be said that the second accused was highly insensitive towards her daughter-in-law and had been nagging her regarding the type of jewels which were given in connection with the marriage. On the strength of this evidence, the Trial Court in paragraph 43 and 44 held that, these acts are not extreme acts but to be construed as wear and tear of married life and the variety of allegations that treating like servant, making her to clean toilet, were not given proper food etc. were not mentioned in the earliest point of time, either in the First Information Report or in the Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry and came to the conclusion that the fact that the second accused has ill treated the daughter-in-law, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court is unable to come to the conclusion that such a view is not a possible view, and therefore, in an appeal against acquittal the same cannot be upturned by this Court and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 therefore, having no other option, the acquittal of the second accused, mother-in-law is also upheld by this Court. Therefore, finding no merits in the appeal the same is dismissed.
Index: yes/no 08.07.2022
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
drm
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Washermenpet Range, Chennai.
(Crime No.1568 of 2005).
2. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandran, Chennai-104.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/27 Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J., drm Crl.A.No.496 of 2019 08.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/27