Madras High Court
Saraswathiammal vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 21 March, 2019
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.A.No.321 of 2010
Saraswathiammal ... Appellant
Vs
State by the Inspector of Police,
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
Chennai ... Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgement and conviction dated 12.05.2010 made in
SC.No.401/2007 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Johnsathyan for
Mr.K.Chandru
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 12.05.2010 made in SC.No.401/2007 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/1st accused for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple http://www.judis.nic.in 2 imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range, filed the charge sheet against the appellant/A1 and her son-Balakrishnan/A2, for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The allegations in the final report was that the marriage between the deceased-Anitha and the 2nd accused had taken place on 04.05.2001 and that, after the marriage, the deceased was living with the 2nd accused-her husband and his mother/A1, the appellant herein, at Door No.2, Pazhani Aandavar Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai – 11, and that the deceased did not conceive, even after five years of marriage. Due to which, the appellant/1st accused used to quarrel with the deceased and that, she had informed to her father about the harassment by the appellant/1st accused. When the father of the deceased had enquired the appellant, she had scolded him in abusive language and from that day onwards, she used to pick up frequent quarrel with the deceased and that, whenever, the deceased informed her husband/ 2nd accused, he also used to scold the deceased.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.On 15.05.2006, at about 2.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased with regard to missing of the key of the suitcase which the appellant/1st accused has intended to take with her for her tour programme. When the appellant/1st accused had abused her stating that the deceased had purposely taken the key and hidden it somewhere and when the deceased told her that 'she did not take the keys', the appellant had scolded her by saying “cd;id jtpu ahUk; rhtpia vLf;f KoahJ. bghWf;fp ehna. eP tps';f khl;nl. cd; tapww; py; g[S g{r;rp Tl mjdhy; jhd; ,y;iy vd;Wk;. eP mof;fo nghyP!; !;nlrDf;F nghdtjhnd. ehd; LPUf;F ngha; jpUk;gp tUtjw;Fs; eP tPli ; l tplL ; ngha;tplDk;” and had assaulted the deceased with Chappals and that unable to bear the insult and ill-treatment of the appellant and the passive behaviour of the 2nd accused, in not reprimanding his mother/ appellant about the ill-treatment meted out to his wife, the deceased self-immolated herself on 16.05.2006 at about 7.45 a.m., and died in K.M.C.Hospital, due to the burn injuries and thereby the respondent on the statement of the deceased initially registered a case in Cr.No.604 of 2006 for offence under Section 309 IPC and later when the victim succumbed to the burn injuries, filed the final report against the appellant/1st accused and her son for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4.The committal Magistrate, on receipt of the final report against the accused, summoned the accused, furnished copies of relevant records and documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, finding that the offences involved in this case are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed this case to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and the same was made over to the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, for disposal, in accordance with law.
5.On appearance of the accused before the trial Court, after hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire materials on record and having satisfied prima facie, that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused, framed charges against the accused, for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, and the charges were read over, explained to the accused in the local language, known to them and questioned about the charges. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6.In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20, on its side and also marked Material Objects, M.Os.1 and 2. However, no evidence was let in, on the side of the defence. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.P.W.1-Murugesan is the father of the deceased. P.W.2- Sampath is Tenant of the house owned by the appellant/A.1. P.W.3- Kowsalya is wife of P.W.2. P.W.4-Anjalai is mother of the deceased. P.W.5-Venkatesan is the witness, who attested the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18. P.W.6-R.Vijayakumar, the then XV Metropolitan Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration from the deceased in Kilpauk Medical Hospital. P.W.7-Damodararaj is the duty Doctor in Kilpauk Medical Hospital, who certified to the effect that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration. P.W.8-Kubendran is the photographer. P.W.9- Mohammed, who signed as a witness for the confession statement given by the appellant/A.1. P.W.10-Dr.Subbulakshmi, who treated the deceased in Kilpauk Medical Hospital and issued Ex.P.11-Accident Register. P.W.11-David Prabhu Kumar, Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12- Inquest Report. P.W.12-Vijayakumar, Personal Assistant to District Collector, who sent Ex.P.14 report to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range. P.W.13-Dr.C.Manohar, who conducted post mortem on the deceased and issued Ex.P.15-Post Mortem Certificate. P.W.14-Silambu Chelvan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sembium, who registered the case in Crime No.604 of 2006 and prepared Ex.P.17- FIR. P.W.15-Boopathy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Range, who conducted further investigation. P.W.16-K.Rajaram, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sembium Range, who conducted further investigation and filed the final report against the accused under Section 306 IPC and sent the same to the trial Court.
8.Ex.P1, dated 16.05.2006 is the endorsement made by P.W.1 in the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the Tahsildar. Ex.P2, dated 16.05.2006, is the statement of P.W.3, recorded by the Tahsildar. Ex.P3, dated 16.05.2006, is the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the Tahsildar. Ex.P4, dated 15.05.2006 is the Observation Mahazar. Ex.P5, dated 15.05.2006 is the requisition Seizure Mahazar. Ex.P6, dated 15.05.2006, is the requisition sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police to the XV Metropolitan Magistrate. Ex.P7, dated 15.05.2006 is the Dying Declaration. Ex.P8, dated 15.05.2006 endorsement made by P.W.7 in the dying declaration at 5.15 pm on 15.05.2006. Ex.P9, dated 15.05.2006 is the endorsement made by P.W.7 in the dying declaration at 05.40 p.m. Ex.P10, signature of P.W.9 in the confession statement of the 2nd accused. Ex.P11, dated 15.05.2006 is the copy of Accident Register. Ex.P12, dated 16.05.2006, is the Inquest report. Ex.P13, dated 18.05.2006, is the report of Tahsildar. Ex.P14, dated 06.06.2006 is the report of the Personal Assistant to District Collector. Ex.P15, dated 17.05.2006 is the Postmortem http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Certificate. Ex.P16, dated 15.05.2006 is the Complaint. Ex.P.17, dated 15.05.2006 is the printed FIR. Ex.P.18, dated 15.05.2006 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.19, dated 30.05.2006 is the requisition given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the V Metropolitan Magistrate. Ex.P.20, dated 16.05.2006 is the requisition given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the District Collector.
9.On completion of the evidence, on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated to be tried. However, no evidence was let in, on the side of the defence.
10.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, while acquitting the 2nd accused found the appellant/1st accused guilty for offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and awarded punishment as stated above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
11. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
12.The learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused has assailed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, on the following infirmities, discrepancies and grounds :-
(a) The trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant /1st accused for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC based on the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 4, who are none other than the father and mother of the deceased and they are living elsewhere and that whatever deposed by them can only be hearsay evidence in respect of the incident that took place on the particular day.
(b) Ex.P7, dying declaration itself would show that the appellant/1st accused is not responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased and further, there is absolutely no material, attracting ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant/1st accused.
(c) It is also on record as per the evidence of P.W.3, the neighbour, that there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant/1st accused and the deceased and that they used to compromise with each other after quarrels and it was the regular conduct of their affairs. Petty quarrels between the appellant/1st accused and the deceased would not tantamount to cruelty either mental or physical and there was no big fight between them, at any point of time. When such being so, the allegations against the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 appellant/accused cannot be held guilty for the petty quarrels and further that there are material on record to show that the victim had assaulted the appellant/mother-in-law on an earlier occassion, thereby, offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C., is not attracted.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused would contend that reading of the dying declaration would only infer that the death of the deceased is due to accidental fire and not due to suicidal and it is the admitted case of the deceased herself in the dying declaration that there was a quarrel in the morning, thereafter, husband of the deceased/A.2 had come home and consoled her and gone back to work and thereafter, being humiliated by the conduct of the appellant/accused the victim had poured kerosene over herself and since, she was afraid, she started crying and thereafter expecting that somebody would come and console her had been lighting the match stick and putting it off repeatedly and unexpectedly, accidentally, she set her ablaze. Immediately on hearing the noise, neighbour of the deceased one Ganesan came, doused the fire and saved her. It could be evident from the reading of the dying declaration which would go to show that it is not the intention of the deceased to commit suicide and she had set fire by an accidental act while she was continuously lighting the match box and putting it off http://www.judis.nic.in 10 expecting someone would come and console her and that there was no intention on the part of the appellant/1st accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide.
14.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is the case where no demand of dowry was made and that as per the dying declaration, the deceased herself had stated that immediately after the incident, her mother-in-law came and lamented stating why she had attempted to do such a thing. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have analysed the evidences with the other circumstances and having acquitted the husband of the deceased/A.2, ought to have acquitted the appellant/A.1 also.
15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the statement of the deceased is clear and it is admissible in law and that the deceased has spoken about the circumstances and the transaction under which she was led to commit suicide and that the transaction which ensued after the fight between the appellant/accused and the deceased would show that there was wilful conduct of the appellant/accused, which is of such a nature to drive the woman to commit suicide and thereby the appellant/accused is liable for the acts for having subjected the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 deceased to drive her to commit suicide and hence, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence warrants no interference by this Court.
16.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
17.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of conviction.
18.Now, what is to be seen is whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused by letting in evidence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial Court is right in convicting the appellant/accused for the charges framed against her ?
19.P.W.1, is the father of the deceased Anitha. P.W.2-Sampath is the tenant, owned by the appellant/1st accused. P.W.3, wife of P.W.2. P.W.4-Anjalai is the mother of the deceased. Deceased was given in marriage to the 2nd accused and their marriage was taken place on 04.05.2001. As per the evidence let in by P.W.1, it was informed that the 2nd accused was working in Chennai Metro Water http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Board and only after marriage, it came to light that the 2nd accused was running a barber shop. After marriage, the deceased was living with her husband in a peaceful manner only for 6 months and that thereafter, the appellant as well as her son/2nd accused used to pick up petty quarrels with the deceased. Since, the deceased did not conceive, there used to be frequent quarrels and ill treatment of the deceased and that whenever P.W.1 enquired, the deceased had informed that the appellant and her son/2nd accused used abusive language against her.
20.Further, it is the evidence of P.W.1, that during 2003, the appellant/1st accused had attempted to cause injury on the deceased with sickle and that the deceased went and stayed in the house at the ground floor and P.W.1 was informed about the incident by the neighbours. When P.W.1, came to Chennai to see his daughter, she informed the same and they went to the Police Station and gave a complaint and thereafter, the matter was compromised in the Police Station and the deceased started living with the appellant and her son. After sometime, the deceased and 2nd accused lived separately for one year and since, they were unable to pay the rent, they came back and started living in the house of the appellant and that during 2006, when the appellant was about to go for a tour, keys of her suit http://www.judis.nic.in 13 case were found missing and that the appellant had blamed the deceased and that there was a wordy quarrel.
21.On 15.05.2006, a friend of the 2nd accused telephoned P.W.1 and informed stating that his daughter had set her ablaze by pouring kerosene and asked all of them to come to Chennai and on 16.05.2006 at about 3.00 a.m., when P.W.1 had come to Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, to see his daughter, she had told him that it had happened due to ill-treatment of the appellant/accused and after sometime, she died in the hospital. Endorsement made by P.W.1 in the statement of P.W.4 recorded by the Tahsildar is marked as Ex.P.1 and the statement of P.W.4, recorded by the Tahsildar is marked as Ex.P.3.
22.P.W.10-Dr.Subbulakshmi, was the duty Doctor in the emergency ward in the Kilpauk Medical College and hospital, Chennai and she had deposed that the deceased was brought with burn injuries on 15.05.2006 by her husband/A.2 at about 2.15 p.m., and she had informed that the deceased self immolated herself because of the quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law/the appellant. Further, the Doctor deposed that the burn injuries were http://www.judis.nic.in 14 seen in the face, both legs and the deceased was admitted as an in- patient and given treatment for the burn injuries. Copy of the accident register issued by P.W.10 is marked as Ex.P.11.
23.P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.16 statement from the deceased and got her left thumb impression in the complaint and thereby registered the case in Crime No.604 of 2006 for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The printed the copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.P.17.
24.P.W.14-Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and prepared Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.4, Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P.5, Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18 in the presence of the witnesses. P.W.8 is the photographer, who took the photographs at the scene of occurrence and took the photograph of the deceased, after her death in the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai. Photographs taken by him were marked as M.O.2 series.
25.P.W.6 is the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, who had on receipt of Ex.P.6, requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police, to record the http://www.judis.nic.in 15 dying declaration from the deceased, had gone to Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, at about 05.15 p.m., and got an endorsement about the fitness of the deceased in Ex.P.7 from the duty Doctor Damodararaj-P.W.7 and recorded Ex.P.7-dying declaration from the deceased. After recording dying declaration, duty Doctor-P.W.7 also certified to the effect that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind while the dying declaration was recorded.
26.Thereafter, the respondent police received information from the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, that the deceased had died and since, her death was within 7 years from her marriage, the case was altered to under Section 306 IPC and it was handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police-P.W.15, for further investigation. He took up the case for further investigation and sent a requisition to Personal Assistant to the District Collector to conduct an enquiry, whether any cruelty or demand of dowry has made on the deceased. P.W.12-N.Vijayakumar, Personal Assistant to District Collector had forwarded the same to the Tahsildar for further action and P.W.11-Tahsildar, on receipt of the intimation from P.W.12, went to the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses http://www.judis.nic.in 16 and panchayatars. Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P.12. P.W.13- Dr.Manohar, Professor of Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, had deposed that he conducted post mortem and issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P.13 and the following injuries were found on the deceased, “Epidermo-dermo epidermal burns with denuded cuticle exposing the reddish area seen over the face, neck, both sides of the chest and part of abdomen, front and back of both upper limbs, back of the trunk and front of both thigh (71% Burns). Both eyes are found eviscerated for corneal graft purpose.
No other external or any internal injury are noted.”
27.Further, P.W.13 had given an opinion that the deceased would have died due to Hypovolumic shock and due to burns and thereby, P.W.15-Assistant Commissioner of Police altered the case under Section 306 IPC and arrested the accused. P.W.16-Assistant Commissioner of Police, completed the investigation and filed the final report against the accused. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17
28.In this case, admittedly there are 2 dying declarations, one in the form of statement recorded by P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P.16 and another dying declaration recorded by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, which is marked as Ex.P.7. In both the dying declarations, the victim has stated about the frequent quarrels that happened between herself and her mother-in-law, the appellant herein. In the 2nd dying declaration, though there are minor contradictions in respect of the earlier statement given by the deceased, one thing is clear that there had been frequent quarrel between her and that the appellant/1st accused and that the appellant used to abuse her and that on the particular day, there being a quarrel, the appellant had abused her. On the analysis of the dying declaration recorded by P.W.6-XV Metropolitan Magistrate, this Court can infer that the deceased did not actually intend to commit suicide and she had accidentally caught fire. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the contents of the dying declaration.
“....... vd; tPl;Lf;fhuh; vd;id rkhjhdk; bra;J itj;J tpl;L rY}Df;F ngha; tpl;lhh;/ vd; khkpahh; vd;id nftykhf ngrpaJ vdf;F mrp';fkhf ,Ue;jJ/ vdf;F mtkhdkhf ,Ue;jjhy; ehnd vd; kPJ bfurpid Cw;wpf; bfhz;nld;/ bfhSj;jpf;bfhs;s gakhf ,Ue;jjhy; rj;jk; nghl;L mGJ bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJk; ahUk; tutpy;iy/ tj;jpf;Fr;rpia Vw;wp g[lit kPJ gw;w http://www.judis.nic.in 18 itj;J. gw;w itj;J mizj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ jpObud;W vd;kPJ beUg;g[ ntfkhf gpoj;Jf; bfhz;lJ/ vjph; tPl;oypUe;Jk; fnzrd; vd;gth; Xo te;J jPia mizj;jhh;/ vd; khkpahh; mg;nghJ te;J ehd; vd;d brhd;ndd;. rhtpia vLj;jhah vd;W jhnd nfl;nld; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ Mdhy; mth; jpl;oajhy; jhd; ehd; bfhSj;jpf;fpl;nld; mt;tst[jhd;/“
29. It is appropriate to refer to Section 306 IPC:-
“20.Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
“306.Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
30.The ingredients of abetment of suicide are as follows:-
The prosecution has to prove-
(i)the deceased committed suicide;
(ii)the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide and that
(iii)there was direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19
31. Before Section 306 of IPC can be acted upon, there must be clear proof of the fact that the death in question was a suicidal death. The offence of 'abetment' must conform to the definition of that term as given in Section 107 of IPC, that is to say, there must be instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the commission of suicide. It is not necessary or indeed is it a part of the definition that the suicide should have been committed in consequence of the abetment.
32.Admittedly, it is not a case of dowry death. As stated above the ingredients, the prosecution has to prove that the victim committed suicide and that the accused abetted the suicide. While analysing the dying declaration, the victim had stated that she was lighting the match stick and putting it off repeatedly expecting that somebody would come and console her, whereas suddenly the match stick lit the saree and thereby she caught fire, inferring that the victim caught fire accidentally and the death is not suicide. Further the term instigation under Section 107 IPC, explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) as follows:-
“16.Speaking for the three Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], R.C.Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) http://www.judis.nic.in 20 said that 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.
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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17.Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”
10.Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (See Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal).” http://www.judis.nic.in 21
33.The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision of M.Arjunan Vs. The State rep. By its Inspector of Police (Crl.Appeal.No.1550 of 2018, dated 04.12.2018) (Crl.Appeal.No.1550 of 2018) “8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment : (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the accused to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless t he ingredients of instigation / abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
34.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though this Court may not place relevance on the statement recorded during Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry, it is the admitted statement of P.W.2-Kowsalya, the tenant, that the deceased also assaulted her mother-in-law, which resulted the appellant to use abusive language on the deceased. So, the entire http://www.judis.nic.in 22 circumstances leading to the death of the victim/deceased cannot be attributed to the appellant alone and further, he would submit that it is the statement of the deceased herself that immediately after the occurrence, the appellant had lamented about the conduct of the deceased for having committed such an act that the appellant did not have the intention or motive to drive the victim to commit suicide and that the reason for the death of the victim could not be due to suicide.
35.While analysing the evidence on record, with reference to the Judgment referred above, it can be inferred that the victim/deceased did not intend to commit suicide. As stated in the dying declaration she had been lighting the match stick and putting it off and was crying, expecting that somebody would come and console her. While she was lighting the match stick and putting it off, she had accidentally lit the fire on her saree, resulting in her sustaining burn injuries, ultimately leading to her death. Further, it is the statement of the victim/deceased that the appellant/1st accused rushed to place and lamented saying why she had done that and that she had only asked for the keys. Admittedly, there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant/mother-in-law and the deceased/daughter-in- law, and that there is also evidence that the victim had earlier http://www.judis.nic.in 23 assaulted the appellant/1st accused. When such being so, the words uttered by the appellant/1st accused can only be taken as words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention to instigate the victim/deceased to commit suicide. However perusal and reading of the evidence on record makes out charges against the accused for offences under Section 498A IPC.
36.In the light of the decisions referred and the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of IPC and however, taking into consideration the evidences in totality, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant/1st accused for having committed offence under Section 498A IPC, thereby this Court while setting aside the conviction for offence under Section 306 IPC, confirms the conviction for offence under Section 498A IPC.
37.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 12.05.2010 made in S.C.No.401 of 2007, on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, is set aside in respect of the offence under http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Section 306 of IPC alone. The Appellant/1st accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against her for the offence under Section 306 IPC alone. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC is directed to be refunded to her. However, in respect of the offence under Section 498A IPC, while confirming the conviction under Section 498A of IPC, the period of sentence is modified to the period already under gone by the appellant/1st accused.
Jer 21.03.2019
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
To
1.Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Section Officer
Criminal Section
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Jer
Crl.A.No.321 of 2010
21.03.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in