Madras High Court
Sudalai vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 23 March, 2020
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.759 and 905 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.10165 of 2019
1.Crl.RC(MD)No.759 of 2019:-
1.Sudalai
2.Murugan : Petitioners/A1 and A4
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Alangulam,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Seethaparappanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.20 of 2016) : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer in Crl.RC(MD)No.759 of 2019: Criminal
Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code against the order passed by the Sessions Judge (Mahila
Court), Tirunelveli, in SC No.624 of 2017, dated 22.02.2019 for
framing charges under section 304(B) IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
2.Crl.RC(MD)No.905 of 2019:-
1.Krishnammal
2.Petchiappan : Petitioners/A2 and A3
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Alangulam,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Seethaparappanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.20 of 2016) : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer in Crl.RC(MD)No.905 of 2019: Criminal
Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code against the order passed by the Sessions Judge (Mahila
Court), Tirunelveli, in SC No.624 of 2017, dated 22.02.2019 for
framing charges under section 304(B) IPC.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Ramasamy
(in both cases)
For Respondents : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both the criminal revisions are directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli, in SC No. 624 of 2017, dated 22.02.2019 for framing charges under section 304(B) IPC as against the petitioners/A1 to A4.
2.The short facts of the case is that the parents of the deceased Geetha had four children and after the death of the parents, they were in the custody of the maternal Uncle Ramakrishnan and that on 22.03.2015, marriage between one Murugan/A4 and the deceased Geetha was solemnised at Karuvannallur Arulmighu Ananthavalli Amman Temple and at the time marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold jewels were agreed to be given and only 4 sovereigns were given and subsequently, all the accused jointly demanded dowry and harassed the said Geetha and due to it, she committed suicide by burring herself on 25.02.2016. In this connection, a case in Crime No.20 of 2016 was registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C on 25.02.2016 and the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 27.02.2016. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and upon further investigation, charge sheet was filed against the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioners/A1 to A4 in S.C.No.624 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli. The learned Sessions Judge issued summons to the petitioners/A1 to A4 and on their appearance, copies of the charge sheet was given to them. On 22.02.2019, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charge under section 304(B) IPC and posted the case for trial. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioners/A1 to A4 are before this court by way of filing these criminal revisions.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioners/A1 to A4 is that the first respondent without receiving the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer started investigation and prepared alternation report under section 304(B) IPC is not valid since the Revenue Divisional Officer fixed two accused, but in the alternation report, A1 to A4 were fixed as accused and in the final report, only common charge was framed as against A1 to A4 and there is no specific date of harassment or demand of dowry in the final report or the duration between such date the dowry http://www.judis.nic.in 5 harassment is made by the other accused was not stated and hence, the final report is not legally sustainable in law and prays that the criminal revisions are to be allowed. For that, the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submitted the following rulings:-
(1)1991 CRI.L.J. 429 (Bhaskar Chattoraj Vs.State of West Bengal);
(2)2000(II)CTC 116 (Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. State rep. by Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D.,Chennai);
(3)2011 CIJ 240 CTJ (1) (Mubarack Vs. State);
(4)2017 CRI.L.J.109 (K.A.Hashim Vs. State of Kerala);
(5)2018-2-L.W(Crl.) 779 (P.Kallapiran Vs. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Alwarkuruchi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.);
(6)[2019(1) T.N.L.R 256 (MAD.) (N.Senthil and another Vs. State represented by the Dy.
Superintendent of Police) (7).2019-2-L.W (Crl.) 510 (Manickaraj Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police);
(8).(2019)4 MLJ (Crl) 589 ( K.Thoosimuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu); and (9).2020 CRI.L.J.296 (Girish Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand).
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
5.On the other hand, it is argued on the side of the respondents/State that the charge sheet contains many statements of the witnesses, who had spoken clearly about the occurrence and the recovery made from the accused and the materials collected during the investigation and produced before the trial court discloses prima facie case against the petitioners/A1 to A4 as observed by the trial court and the statement of the witnesses establishes the offence charged against them and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for trial and the charge framed by the court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require interference and prays that the criminal revisions may be dismissed. For that, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted the ruling reported in 2014(4) Crimes (SC) 571 (State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs. N.Suresh Rajan and others), wherein it has been held as follows:-
“11.It is trite law that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts merging there from taking at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients http://www.judis.nic.in 7 constituting the alleged offence, at that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion found on material which leads the court to from a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”
6.In this case, the de-facto complainant is the Uncle of the deceased. On perusal of the complaint, it is stated as follows:-
“fPjh gp., goj;J te;jhh;
mtis fUtey;Y}iu nrh;e;j
ngr;rpag;gd; j/bg.uhikah mth;fs; kfd;
vk;.KUfd; vd;gtUf;F 21.03.15y;
jpUkzk; bra;J bfhLj;J rPh;thpira[k;
bra;J te;njhk; Mdhy; ,ilf;fp ,il
gpur;rid te;jJ vd brhy;ths;
mija[k; rkhspj;J rhpahfptpLk; vd;W
brhy;yp te;njhk; Mdhy; ,d;W
25.02.2016k; njjp 12.00 kzpastpy;
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
nghd; bra;J khkh vd;id
mtkhpahijahf ngRfpwhh;fs; vd;W
brhy;yp mGjhs; ehd; mtis
rkhjhdk; bra;J gpwF ngRfpnwd;
vd;nwd; Mdhy; 04.50 kzpastpy;
mtsJ khkdhh; ngr;rpag;gd; vd;gth;
mtsh; ,we;Jtpl;ljhf jfty;
brhd;dhh; ehd; clnd g[wg;gl;L
rPjgw;gey;Y}h; te;njd; tPl;oy; vdJ
kUkfs; cly; KgtJk; fUfpa epiyapy;
,we;J fple;jhs; mjdhy; ,e;j
rk;gtj;jpy; cz;ik fz;lwpe;J jf;f
tprhuiz bra;a[khW jhH;ika[ld;
nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;.”
7.At first, the case was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the FIR and the complaint were sent to Revenue Divisional Officer. In this case, The Revenue Divisional Officer sent his report on 27.02.2009 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam. Further, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. PW1 in his statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer specifically stated that there was dowry demand by the in- laws of the deceased. After the investigation by the Investigating Officer, in the final report, it was categorically stated that A1 to A3 demanded dowry from the deceased, but A4 has not objected the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 action of A1 to A3 and he simply kept quite. In several judgments of the Apex Court, it was held that when the in-laws demanded dowry from the deceased and it was not resisted by the husband of the deceased, the husband also responsible for the offence committed by his parents. If the husband resisted the action of his parents, the deceased will not run to commit suicide. When the husband has not taken any steps to resist the cruelty done by his parents, it amounts that he is also wiling for dowry from his wife and when the husband resisted the action of his parents, definitely the wife will not commit suicide and in this case, the husband kept quite and he has not raised any objection for the demand of dowry by his parents and his sister and hence, the husband indirectly made his wife to commit suicide since the husband has not taken any steps to save his wife.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submitted that A1 to A4 have no connection with the occurrence and hence, they are liable to be deleted from the final report. In this case, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. The witnesses categorically stated the occurrence and the recovery made from the accused. The materials collected during the investigation reveals that prima facie case is made out http://www.judis.nic.in 10 as against the petitioners/A1 to A4 and there are sufficient grounds to proceed as against all the accused for trial. Hence, the rulings submitted on the side of the petitioners/A1 to A4 are not applicable to the case on hand.
9.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submitted that in the final report, no specific allegation of demand of dowry not stated and hence, it is fatal to the prosecution.
10.On perusal of the FIR, it is stated that frequently dispute arose after the marriage of A4 and the deceased. Further, during investigation, the de-facto complainant stated on several times that A1 to A3 demanded dowry from the deceased. In the final report, it is stated that two months after the marriage between A4 and the deceased, A1 to A3 demanded dowry from the deceased and A4 has not taken any steps to resist the demand of dowry by A1 to A3. Hence, in the final report, the date of demand of dowry and the cruelty committed by A1 to A4 was specifically stated. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the petitioners/A1 to A4 that no specific date of occurrence was stated is not acceptable. http://www.judis.nic.in 11
11.On careful perusal of the records, the trial court correctly framed the charge as against the petitioners/A1 to A4. Further it is to be noted here that no discharge petition was filed by the petitioners/A1 to A4 before the trial court before framing of charge. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners cannot question the charge framed against them by the trial court.
12.For all the reasons stated above this court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial court do not require any interference of this court and accordingly, it is confirmed.
13.In the result, both criminal revisions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.03.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er http://www.judis.nic.in 12 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J er To,
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Seethaparappanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.759 and 905 of 2019 23.03.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 13 http://www.judis.nic.in