Madras High Court
Rajendran vs State By on 12 November, 2014
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.11.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.745 of 2004 Rajendran ... Appellant vs. State by Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Sembium Range, G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed against him under Section 498-A IPC convicting him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months in S.C.No.380/2003 on 13.05.2003 by the Sessions Judge in the court of Magalir Neethimandram at Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.N.Raja Senthoor Pandian For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a sum of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.380/2013, dated 13.05.2004. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present appeal.
2. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and as per the charge sheet, the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, used harsh words against the deceased, beat her, pledged her jewels and also questioned the paternity of the child born to him and as a result of that, the deceased was driven to the stage of committing suicide by self-immolation on 19.07.2002 at about 8.00p.m.
3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses; P.Ws.1 and 2 are the mother and sister of the deceased; P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the deceased; P.W.5 is the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem; P.W.6 is the Observation Mahazar witness; P.W.7 is the Tahsildar; P.W.8 is the P.A. to District Collector and P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officers. The prosecution marked 14 exhibits and the Defence marked one exhibit, which is the Requisition given by S.I. of Police to the Doctor to keep the body in mortuary. D.W.1, one Devarajan was examined as Defense witness.
4. The learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, as no case was made out for convicting the accused under the said Section and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him for the period as stated above.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Judge, having rightly held that no case has been made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, ought not have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. He further submitted that admittedly the appellant was not in the house when the deceased self-immolated herself and even according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the deceased suspected her husband for having relationship with her brother's wife and there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling with each other and the appellant ill-treated the deceased either by demanding money or jewels and therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence adduced against the appellant, the Trial Court ought not have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 was not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge. P.W.1, mother of the deceased has stated before the Tahsildar, who examined her at the earliest point of time that the appellant did not demand any jewels or money from the deceased and he never ill-treated the deceased on that account. Therefore, when there was no ill-treatment to the deceased by demanding jewels or money and in the absence of any other ill-treatment, the Trial Court ought not have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Ex.P11, the report of the P.A. to District Collector, the death of the deceased was not due to dowry harassment. It is also seen from the Statement given by the deceased to the Tahsildar, P.W.7 that there was no dowry harassment. He also submitted that the learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration some incidents that have occurred long back to presume that the appellant had ill-treated his wife, which drove her to commit suicide and the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge is erroneous, as no evidence was let in by the prosecution to the effect that the appellant had done something which prompted the deceased to commit suicide and in the absence of any such logic, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A and the appeal has to be allowed and the conviction and sentence have to be set aside.
7. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the learned Trial Judge rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC having regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also having regard to the statement of the appellant before the Tahsildar, wherein, he admitted that he questioned the paternity of the child to his wife. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant prompted her to commit suicide and hence, would submit that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A was properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and there is no need for interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A is proper and whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt are issues for consideration in this appeal.
9. As stated supra, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution for that offence. The Trial Court found him not guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and also stated the following reason for arriving at such a conclusion.
The quarrel on 17.07.2002 would indicate that the mother-in-law (as per Ex.P3) would have been in the house of her daughter and therefore Sumathi would have compelled her husband to pay back the money. The nature of quarrel and the words used during that quarrel would have prompted her to commit suicide. But the accused cannot be made responsible for that because hurting words had originated first only from the deceased. For a simple money transaction, she need not have asked the accused as to whether he is impotent. The subsequent version in Ex.P7 is that Sumathi witnessed a suicide occurrence in the cinema and based upon that she would have decided to commit suicide. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, it is not known what was the compelling force operating in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide. It is also not known who are the persons responsible for the suicide of Sumathi. The fact remains that she was having a child which requires motherly affection and protection. There ought to have been some compelling circumstances for Sumathi to commit suicide. But the prosecution failed in proving that the accused alone was responsible for the suicide committed by Sumathi. Even though the evidence available do not justify the Court to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act (thereby leading to the acquittal of the accused under Section 306 IPC).
10. According to me, the learned Trial Judge rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances and rightly found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC. To convict a person for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of the husband and the cruelty should be of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mentally or physically of the woman.
11. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2002, there was wordy altercation between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased used filthy language against the appellant for not repaying the loan amount to her mother and also called him impotent and immediately the appellant also retorted by saying if he was impotent how the child was born and that was rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge by holding that by reason of the words used by the deceased against her husband, he questioned the paternity of the child and held that the appellant cannot be made responsible because hurting words had originated first from the deceased.
12. Learned Trial Judge also rightly held that for simple money transaction, the deceased need not have asked the accused as to whether he was impotent. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly held that the incident that had taken place on the previous day could not have been the cause to commit suicide. If that incident was not the reason for committing suicide, then in my opinion, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A. Learned Trial Judge relied upon the following instances to suspend the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A. "The act of the accused removing 'Thali' from his wife (in the street) and the act of interference in the family life of the brother of the deceased coupled with his harrasment in taking the jewels of Sumathi and his non-interference whenever his family members caused harassment to Sumathi are all willful conduct which would have driven his wife to the extent of committing suicide. Hence the accused is found guilty under Section 498-A IPC."
13. We shall see whether such acts even taken for granted would lead to conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. According to P.W.1, the marriage between the appellant and the deceased took place on 24.05.2000 and three months after the marriage, she requested the appellant to send her daughter, the deceased to her house and the appellant questioned whether the deceased preferred her mother or her husband and also snatched her Thali. Therefore, the incident must have taken place in August 2000. Thereafter, the child was born to the deceased through the appellant and therefore, the incident which took place in August 2000 cannot be the direct result for the deceased to commit suicide.
14. The second reason stated in the judgment is that the appellant interfered with the family life of the brother of the deceased coupled with the harassment in taking jewels of the deceased. P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she has never told before the Tahsildar that the appellant ill-treated the deceased by demanding money or jewels. She also admitted that no such demand was made by the appellant. Therefore, it is admitted by P.W.1 that the appellant did not demand any jewel or money. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the appellant was talking with her estranged daughter-in-law and by reason of that, her son and daughter-in-law are living separately. Ex.P14 is the Report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the Court, wherein also, it is only stated that on the previous date, namely, 18.07.2002, there was wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased called him as impotent and the appellant asked her through whom she delivered the child and therefore, she committed suicide on 19.07.2002 and much earlier, the appellant snatched the Thali of the deceased. P.W.1 also admitted in the Statement given before the Tashildar, Ex.P3 that she did not make allegation of cruelty against the appellant and she accused the mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
15. Therefore, P.W.1 did not state any reason or did not give any evidence regarding any incident that had taken place immediately before the occurrence and the only incident that had taken place before the occurrence was the wordy altercation between the appellant and the deceased and that was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court holding that the conduct of the appellant cannot be said to be cruel as the deceased was responsible for such incident. Therefore, in the absence of any incident that had taken place immediately before the occurrence which led the deceased to commit suicide, it cannot be held that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC on the ground that the appellant had ill-treated the deceased two years earlier and the deceased suspected the character of the appellant and she also suspected that the appellant was having illicit relationship with her brother's wife and therefore, she committed suicide. According to me, this version even assuming to be true cannot be sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
16. Hence, the reasons stated by the learned Trial Judge for convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC are not sufficient to convict a person for the said offence and therefore, when the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the finding of the learned Trial Court in that respect is set aside and as a result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 498-A IPC by judgment dated 13.05.2003 in S.C.No.380/2003 by the Sessions Judge, Court of Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, are set aside. The appellant is set at liberty and the fine amount, if paid, shall be returned to the appellant. The bail bond executed by the appellant is also cancelled.
In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
12.11.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No abe To :
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Sembium Range, G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai.
R.S.RAMANATHAN,J.
Abe Judgment in Crl.A.No.745 of 2004 Dated: 12.11.2014