Madras High Court
Selvarani vs The State Rep. By on 23 July, 2014
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.04.2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 11.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
Selvarani ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Roshanai Police Station,
Tindivanam. Cr.No.4 of 2011.
2.Maheswari ... Respondents
PRAYER:Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
against the acquittal passed on her by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.41 of 2014 dated 23.07.2014.
For Appellant : Ms.V.Kayalvizhi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Veeramani
No.1
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah
No.2 Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The defacto complainant in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam is the appellant herein.
2.The second respondent/accused viz., Maheswari has been prosecuted by the Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam, in Crime No.4 of 2011 for having abeted the suicide of the deceased Ramalingam an offence punishable under section 306 IPC.
3.In the trial Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses PW 1 to PW9 and marked eight documents Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence were marked.
4.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution side, found not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC and acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
5.Aggrieved by the acquittal, the defacto complainant viz., Selvarani PW1, has filed this criminal appeal.
6.The prosecution case is that the deceased Ramalingam was the President of Illamangalam Village Panchayat. The accused Maheswari was the Ward Member of that Panchayat. The deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused and many days, he stayed in her house at Santhaimedu, Tindivanam and spent more amount for the accused and also gave 12 sovereigns of jewels to her. One week prior to the occurrence, the deceased wife Selvarani PW1 went to the house of the accused and found the deceased was in her house with the bare body. Hence, his wife Selvarani PW1 assaulted the deceased at the house of the accused and the deceased requested the complainant PW1 not to disclose their relationship to others. Thereafter, the complainant returned to her home and the deceased also came to the house and again requested not to disclose his relationship with the accused. Thereafter, he went to the house of the accused to get back the jewels but he did not return. On 07.01.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant received a phone message that her husband consumed poison Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 and admitted in the Government hospital, Tindivanam. She immediately went to the hospital and found her husband was unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and on the way to the hospital, he died on 08.01.2011. Thereafter, she gave the complaint Ex.P1 to Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam and the same was registered in crime No.4 of 2011.
7.Nagarathinam PW7 Sub Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, on 08.11.2011 at about 6.30p.m., received a complaint Ex.P1 from Selvarani PW1 and registered the case in Crime No.4 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The registered FIR is Ex.P5. Thereafter, he informed to RDO and higher officers and went to the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses viz., Selva and Annadurai PW3, prepared observation mahazer Ex.P2, rough sketch Ex.P6 and conducted inquest and the inquest report is Ex.P7 and send the body to postmortem.
Page 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
8.Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha PW5 Association Professor in Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, conducted the postmortem on the deceased body and opined that he was died due to ingestion of organophaspherous. The viscera report is Ex.P3, in the viscera report, it was mentioned that stomach and intestine organophaspherous. Pesticide was detected and 236 ml gram of Eathel Alchohol was also formed in the liver and kidney the same pesticide was also detected in the liver and kidney 276 ml.gram Eathel alchohol was presented, in the blood same pesticide was also detected and 288 ml.gram was present and on the basis of viscera report, issued postmortem certificate Ex.P4.
9.Ramakrishnan, PW8 Inspector of police took up the case for further investigation and after receiving the postmortem report, he altered the case into 306 IPC alteration FIR Ex.P8. Further, on 18.09.2012, at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused Maheswari at Santhaimedu Bus stop, then remanded to judicial custody and recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, Elumalai PW9 Investigating Officer took up the further Page 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 investigation. After recording the statement of witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed a final report against the accused.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the complainant Selvarani PW1, who is the wife of the deceased Ramalingam. During the relevant period, the deceased Ramalingam was the President of Illamangalam Village Panchayat and the accused is a Ward Members of that Panchayat. The deceased had illicit intimacy with the accused, spent more money and handed over 12 sovereigns of jewels. The deceased made practice of staying at the home of the accused at Santhaimedu, Tindivanam. On 07.01.2011, the deceased went to the home of the accused to get back the jewels given by him to her but he did not returned. The message was received by the defacto complainant over phone that her husband consumed poison and admitted him in the Government Hospital, Tindivanam. She went to the Government hospital, Tindivanam and found her husband was unconscious. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, on the way to the hospital, he died on Page 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 08.01.2011. Thereafter, the defacto complainant gave the complaint at Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam, the complaint Ex.P1 was received and a case was registered in crime No.4 of 2011. The evidence of Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha PW5, who conducted postmortem, was not properly considered by the trial Court. The Investigating Officer S.Nagarathinam (Inspector) PW7 is not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The illicit relationship of the deceased Ramalingam and the accused Maheswari was not properly enquired by the Investigating Officer and reiterated the other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus pleaded to convict the accused and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
11.The learned counsel for the second respondent/accused supported the judgement of the trial Court and further, contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused aided for committing suicide and there is no evidence on the prosecution side to show that the accused helped or instigated for committing suicide. In the absence of any evidence of abetment by the accused, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and pleaded to dismiss the appeal.
Page 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
12.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
13.This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 306 IPC.
14.The charge against the accused is that she abeted the deceased for committing suicide. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. Among them, PW1 Selvarani is the wife of the deceased and the complainant in this case. Other prosecution witnesses, PW2 Kanniamma did not state anything about the occurrence, she was treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW3 Annadurai is the witness to the observation Mahazar Ex.P2. PW4 Jayaprakash did not state anything about the occurrence, he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW5 Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha conducted the postmortem upon the deceased body and gave postmortem certificate Ex.P4. PW6 Aanandhan did not spoken about the occurrence, he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW7 S.Nagarathinam, Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 Station, Tindivanam, received the complaint from Selvarani PW1 and registered the complaint Ex.P1 in crime No.4 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P5 FIR and visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazer Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P6 and in the presence of the witness, conducted inquest upon the body and prepared inquest report Ex.P7 and send the body for postmortem. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police viz., Ramakrishnan PW8 and PW8 received the complaint records and conducted further investigation and altered the case under Section 306 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P8 and on 18.09.2012 at about 10.30a.m., he arrested the accused Maheswari at Santhaimedu Bus Stop and recorded the statement of witnesses Elumalai PW9 and conducted further investigation. After completing the investigation, filed the final report against the accused. These witnesses are not spoken about the occurrence and to connect the accused with the crime.
15.In this case, the medical evidence of Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha PW5, stated that the cause of the death was due to ingestion of organophaspherous. Page 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 Thus, the death caused on account of consuming poison and the deceased committed suicide.
16.Now, I have considered the prosecution witnesses and among the nine prosecution witnesses, PW2 Kanniamma, PW4 Jayaprakash, PW6 Aanandhan are not supporting the prosecution witnesses. Hence, they were treated as hostile witnesses. They have not stated anything against the accused. Other witnesses, PW3 Annadurai spoken about attesting the observation mahazer Ex.P2 prepared by Nagarathinam PW7 Sub-Inspector of Police, he did not spoke anything against the accused to connect with the crime. The remaining prosecution witnesses, PW5 Dr.Kusha Kumar Shaha, PW7 S.Nagarathinam, PW8 Ramakrishnan and PW9 Elumalai are offiicial witnesses, they have not spoken anything about the abetment caused by the accused towards the deceased for committing suicide. Therefore, the remaining witness is PW1 Selvarani wife of the deceased, she is the complainant in the case and the appellant in the appeal. Page 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
17.I have gone through the evidence of PW1 Selvarani. In her evidence, she had spoken about the illicit relationship of her husband deceased Ramalingam with the accused Maheswari. One day, the complainant found her deceased husband at the house of the accused Maheswari with bare body and assaulted the deceased and the deceased requested the complainant not to disclose their relationship to others. Thereafter, she went to her home and the deceased also return to home. The day before the occurrence, the deceased Ramalingam informed his wife that he would get back 12 sovereigns of jewels given by him to the accused and he went to the accused home but did not return. A telephone message was received by the complainant at about 2.00 p.m. she was informed that the deceased had consumed poison and admitted at Government hospital, she immediately went to the hospital and found her husband was unconscious and she had taken him to Jipmer Hospital, Pondichrry and on the way to the hospital, he died. Hence, he gave the complaint Ex.P1. She did not speak about the incident tookplace before consuming poison except the deceased having illicit relationship with the accused. There is no evidence that the Page 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Whether there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on fact of each case. In this case, there is no evidence of instigation by the accused for committing suicide by the deceased.
18.The offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of crime in the sense as the parameters of the abetment has been stated in Section 107 of IPC. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, cannot be convicted.
19.In this case, the complainant Selvarani's (PW1) evidence is limited with regard to illicit relationship of the deceased Ramalingam with the accused which is not enough to infer that the accused must have abetted for consuming poison. There is no evidence and material available on record, wherefrom an inference of the accused having abeted the commission of suicide by the deceased Ramalingam may necessarily be drawn. The Court is now under obligation to deal with the evidence as it is. In this case, the Page 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.669 of 2016 complainant Selvarani PW1's evidence is not enough to hold that the accused instigated the deceased Ramalingam to consume poison. The prosecution must give satisfactory proof that the accused aided for committing suicide by the deceased. Except illicit relationship between them, there is no element of evidence of aiding for committing suicide by the deceased. In a criminal case, a conviction must rest on a proof of sufficient evidence. Therefore, the trial Court in the absence of legal proof acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 306 IPC and there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and no merit in the appeal.
In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index: Yes/No 11.05.2022
Internet:Yes/No
sms
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
To
1.The State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Roshanai Police Station,
Tindivanam. Cr.No.4 of 2011.
2.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sms
Pre-delivery Judgement made in
Crl.A.No.669 of 2016
11.05.2022
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis