Madras High Court
Muniappa vs State Rep.By on 29 June, 2018
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.R.C.No.464 of 2011 Muniappa ... Petitioner ..Vs.. State Rep.By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur District. ... Respondent Crime No.435 of 2003 Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.A.No.58 of 2005 dated 05.01.2011 in partly confirming and convicting the Petitioner herein to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo three months R.I for the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC on the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, Erode by judgment in S.C.No.267 of 2004 dated 28.06.2005. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Babu Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Ms.S.Thankira Government Advocate (Crl Side) O R D E R
The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in C.A.No.58 of 2005 dated 05.01.2011, wherein the Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, insofar as the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is concerned, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:
The deceased Mahalakshmi is the daughter of PW-1 and PW-2. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place on 26.05.2003. After the marriage, the deceased lived with the accused person hardly for 1 = months and thereafter she started living with her parents. The petitioner was demanding a vehicle and one sovereign of gold besides money as dowry. On this ground the deceased was sent back to her parents house. On 10.09.2003 when the petitioner wanted to attend the marriage function of his relative, the deceased also wanted to go with him. However, the petitioner did not want her to accompany him and scolded the deceased saying that he does not like her and that she must return back to her parents house and thereby caused mental cruelty to the deceased. On the same day at about 8.45 a.m in the morning, the deceased in the matrimonial house, self immolated herself and thereafter died due to burns and shock. A complaint was given on the same day, which was marked as Ex.P-8 and an FIR was also registered by the respondent Police for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC. The RDO [PW-9] would submitted a Report which was marked as Ex.P-7 and the deceased also gave a dying declaration to PW-12 and the dying declaration was also marked as Ex.P-15. The respondent Police after investigation filed a Final Report and the Trial Court took cognizance and framed a charge against the petitioner for all the three offences mentioned above.
3.The prosecution in order to prove the case examined 13 witnesses and documents Exs.P1 to P1-5 were marked and M.Os.1 to 5 were also marked.
4.The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and also the other materials placed before the Court, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be convicted for all the three offences and imposed a sentence independently for all the three offences and directed them to run concurrently.
5.The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the materials placed before the Court, was pleased to set aside the conviction insofar as the Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304 (B) IPC, however confirmed the conviction and sentence against the petitioner insofar as the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.
6.This Court appointed a legal aid counsel to defend the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is represented by Mr.R.Ganesh Banu, Legal Aid Counsel.
7.Th learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court having found that there was absolutely no demand for dowry and acquitted the petitioner for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304 (B) IPC, ought to have applied the same test and acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC also. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the finding of the Lower Appellate Judge wherein the Appellate Judge had placed reliance on the evidence of PW-12 Judicial Magistrate and the dying declaration which was marked as Ex.P-15. The Appellate Judge has also placed reliance on the evidence of the RDO and the report filed by him. By placing reliance upon these evidence, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner will amount to mental cruelty on the deceased and consequentially an offence under Section 498 (A) IPC has been made out.
8.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the Appellate Court has rightly placed reliance upon the dying declaration and also RDO Report for the purpose of convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. The learned counsel would further contend that a reading of the dying declaration given by the deceased, would clearly point out to the fact that the petitioner had subjected the deceased to mental cruelty to such an extent that it has driven her to take the extreme step of self immolating herself. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court against the petitioner for an offence under Section 498 (A) IPC, does not call for any interference by this Court.
9.It will be useful to extract the statement made by the deceased in her dying declaration which is as follows:
,d;W 10/09/2003?k; njjp fhiy 08/00 kzp RkhUf;F jpUkzj;jpw;F bry;y fpsk;gpndd;/ cd;id gpof;ftp[y;iy/ eP jpUkzj;jpw;F tuf; TlhJ. cd; mg;gh tPl;ow;F Xo tpL/ cd;ndhL thH gpof;ftpy;iy vd;W brhy;yp jpl;o tpl;L ngha; tpl;lhh;/ In exhibit P:15 she has stated ,d;idf;F fhiyapy; 08/00 kzp RkhUf;F Kjypahh; bjUtpy; vd; g[U!d; tPl;oy; ,y;iy/ vd; g[U!d; vd;id thH itf;f khl;nld;/ ntiy bra;a khl;nld;D vd;id Xog; ngh vd;W brhd;dhh;/ ehnd kz;bzz;bza; Cj;jpf;fpl;L jP itr;Rf;fpl;nld;/
10.A reading of this dying declaration will sound as if the deceased was hypersensitive and the fact that she took such an extreme step for a routine argument that went on between the petitioner and her on 10.09.2003 at 8.45 a.m in the morning may not in the strict sense fall within the ambit of mental cruelty. However, it is important to take note of the evidence of PW-1 who is the father of the victim and PW-2 who is the mother of the victim. PW-1 in his evidence states as follows:
vd; kfspd; cly; KgtJk; jPf;fha';fs; ,Ue;jd/ Vd; ,t;thW bra;J bfhz;lha; vd;W vd; kfisf; nfl;l nghJ vd; fzth; bfhlik jh';fhky; ehd; kz;bzz;bza; Cj;jp bfhSj;jpf; bfhz;ljhf brhd;dJ/ 10?k; njjp ,ut[ 8/30 kzp mstpy; rpfpr;ir gydpd;wp ,we;J nghdhs;/ PW-2 in her evidence states as follows:
jpUthU:h; jh;kh!;gj;jphpf;F nghndhk;/ cly; KGtJk; jPf;fha';fs; ,Ue;jJ/ g[U!d; bfhLik jh';fKoahky; kz;bzz;bza; Cj;jp bfhSj;jpf; bfhz;ljhf brhd;dJ/ ,ut[ 08/30 kzp RkhUf;F rpfpr;ir gydpd;wp ,we;J tpl;lhs;/
11.It is also useful to take a note of the evidence of PW-9 RDO who on enquiry has come to the conclusion that the deceased self immolated herself only due to cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused person. This categorical conclusion is found in Ex.P-7.
12.A cumulative reading of all these materials clearly point out to the fact that the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty and she decided to take the extreme step of self immolated herself not being able to tolerate the cruelty and harassment meted out against her. This Court must also bear in mind that within three months from the date of marriage, this incident has taken place and no woman will take such an extreme step for a small argument with her husband.
13.This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the finding of the Appellate Court. This Court sitting in a revisional Jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate a finding on fact unless such a finding suffers from manifest perversity. The learned Appellate Judge has rightly come to the conclusion based on the evidence placed on record that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. This Court concurs with the finding of the Appellate Court. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court insofar as the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is concerned, is hereby confirmed.
14.Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the period of imprisonment is modified from two years to six months. If the petitioner has not already undergone six months imprisonment, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo to the remaining sentence, if any.
15.This Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed by modifying the sentence to the extent indicated above.
29.06.2018 Internet: Yes/No Index: yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Kp To
1.The Sessions Court, Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J KP Crl.R.C.No.464 of 2011 29.06.2018