Madras High Court
Ramalingam vs State Rep By on 18 December, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.A.No.185 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 09.12.2024
Pronounced on : 18.12.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2016
Ramalingam .... Appellant / Accused
Vs
State rep by:
The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Ashok Nagar Range
Ashok Nagar
Chennai - 600 083. .... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the
learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai in S.C.No.7 of 2014
dated 26.02.2016 and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Senthur Kugan
Assisted by Ms.A.G.Shakeena
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
Assisted by Ms.J.R.Archana
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.185 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein was convicted by the Mahila court, Chennai in S.C. No.7 of 2014 for offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC as well as the sentence imposed on him, challenges the same in this appeal. 2.1 The prosecution case opens as below:
a) 3rd April, 2012 opened as a peaceful day for the appellant and his wife, (who is now dead) and the child they have. However, later in the day, appellant's wife was found hanging with a saree tied to the ceiling fan.
The outer door was broken open by the appellant along with PW1, the landlord of the appellant, who lived in the ground floor portion.
b) PW1 promptly gave Ext.P1 complaint, receiving which PW18, registered Ext.P18 FIR under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. The investigation was then taken over by PW19.
c) PW18 proceeded to the SOC, prepared Ext.P2, Observation Magazar in the presence of PW7 and another, and also Ext.P19 rough sketch of the SOC. PW11, photographer who photographed the SOC along with the deceased and the photographs he shot are MO2 series. The IO would seize the saree which the deceased had used for committing 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 suicide (marked MO1) under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.
d) The body was soon removed for postmortem and P.W.15 conducted autopsy on the body and came out with Ext.P13 postmortem report wherein he had indicated that asphyxia due to hanging as the cause for death of appellant's wife. The viscera parts were preserved and forwarded to forensic department, and PW13 on the basis of Ext.P12, the forensic chemical analysis report has recorded that no poison was found in the visceral parts of the deceased.
e) Alongside, the investigating officer began recording the statements of the witnesses and in the process also seized MO3 and MO4, respectively the cellphone of the appellant and his wife under Ext.P9, seizure mahazar in the presence of PW10. He would then forward MO3 and MO4 to P.W.12. These cellphones were examined by PW12, and in his Ext.P11 report has recorded that it was not possible for him to ascertain whether there was any conversation between the accused and the deceased shortly prior to the occurrence.
f) Since the occurrence has happened within seven years of appellant's marriage, PW17 RDO, conducted an inquest and in Ext.P17 report he 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 has indicated that there was a demand for dowry, for which he relied on the statements recorded as disclosed in Ext.P16.
g) The investigating officer would now file a memo for altering the section from Sec.174(3) Cr.P.C to Sec. 306 IPC .
h) In the meantime, PW18 was replaced by PW19, who was followed by PW20, laid the final report against the appellant under Section 498A and 306 IPC.
2.2 The trial court framed necessary charges under the above provisions, and proceeded to try them. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW20 of whom PW8 and PW9 are the parents of the deceased, and PW14 was her maternal uncle. PW1 as stated was the landlord of the appellant and PW2 is PW1's son and P.W.3 to P.W.6 are the neighbours of the appellant. Other witnesses are essentially official witnesses and their role has been already introduced in the narration above.
3. After trial, the Sessions Court found appellant guilty of the charges framed 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 against him, and sentenced him as below:
Offence Sentence imposed Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of U/s.498A IPC Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further period of 3 months rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of U/s.306 IPC Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment This is now appealed in this case.
4.1 The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are as below:
a) Even going by the prosecution line of the crime, the day had opened as a perfect day for the couple and their child uptill 11'o Clock. There was peace within the family. According to the testimony of P.W1, P.W2, the appellant had gone for his job at about 11 O'clock and his wife had committed suicide thereafter.
b) In this regard, the prosecution could not establish that there had been sustained cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC as to make the life miserable for his wife as would prompt her to commit suicide. Secondly, inasmuch as the suicide had happened when the appellant was not in his house, and again given the fact the day 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 opened a perfect day till 11'o clock on the fateful day, there could be no abetment and at any rate there is no evidence to suggest there could be an abutment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.
4.2 Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that :
a) If the charge as framed by the trial court is dissected, it essentially narrates how the couple lived from the date of their marriage on 03.11.2006, but the accusative sentences of the first charge forms only a small part of the entire charge, and it essentially indicate (a) that the appellant was irregular in going to his employment, and that he had sold the jewellery of his wife and the household articles; (b) twice the appellant had either found an insect, or an iron thread of the washing-
scrubber in a dish prepared by the victim, and that he shared the same with his neighbours; (c) that the appellant prevented his wife from taking up an employment due to suspicion; (d) that he had admitted the child in a school which is far away from appellant's residence, which implied that whenever the appellant was out of the town on account of his job, it posed a considerable inconvenience to his wife to bring her child home, and (e) that few months before her suicide, the appellant 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 had forced her to tonsure her hair. However, none of these incidents carry a date. But if these allegations are carefully analysed, they are petty in character.
b) The nature of allegations merely explains how sensitive the parents of the victim are than the victim herself. Rajeswari, the wife of the appellant had earlier gone to her parents house owing to certain matrimonial difference but after each one of these allegations she had not chosen to abandon the appellant, but she stayed with the appellant. And because she died an unexpected death under circumstances which neither the prosecution nor the appellant could explain, ordinary house-hold differences which are common in any family should not be magnified as allegations to frame charges against him.
c) So far as the allegation of tonsure of hair of his wife, PW1, the landlord of the appellant had deposed in his cross-examination that both the appellant's wife and the child had their hair tonsured as part of their religious vow.
d) As regards putting the child in a school far away from the place where the appellant resides is concerned, in a city like Chennai, getting an admission in any school is difficult and no parent can choose the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 school of their convenience.
e) So far as the second charge relating to Sec. 306 IPC is concerned, even the charges does not specifically state how the appellant had abetted the suicide of his wife. All it says is that merely because the appellant has been treating his wife with cruelty she was forced to commit suicide. If this charge is dissected, then the prosecution has not established that there has been sustained cruelty which the appellant had perpetrated upon his wife, and secondly if that were so, then how to explain the fact which even prosecution witnesses have disclosed that the day for the family of the appellant had started as a perfect day at least till about 11'o clock.
f) The only triggering point for the suicide perhaps could be the cell phone chat between PW8 and her daughter. What exactly transpired in the transaction has not been disclosed. Therefore, the fact that Rajeswari was dead is now made use of by her parents to falsely implicate the appellant in a criminal case.
5. Heard the learned prosecutor. His submissions emphasised Ext.P17, the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 report of RDO, and added that the appellant had treated his wife with considerable cruelty and cited the incidents which the counsel for the appellant had explained in his arguments. The kind of incidents of cruelty which the prosecution has explained, may appear ordinary but how it had pained the victim-wife, that is determinative of whether she underwent harassment at the hands of her husband.
6.1 Rival submissions are carefully weighed, and this Court also perused the records. According to the case of prosecution, the offence under Section 498A constituted abetment for offence under Sec.306 IPC. So far as the allegation of dowry demand is concerned, which falls within Sec.498A Explanation (b), there is hardly any evidence to substantiate there indeed was a demand for dowry or harassment for dowry. The testimony of the neighbours which included P.W.1, the landlord of the appellant, indicates that the couple had lived essentially peacefully.
6.2 Turning to the specific incidents which the prosecution has cited, it is only too evident that not one of them merit consideration as to constitute cruelty. The nearest thing that may have some relevance is about the appellant teasing 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 his wife by sharing with his neighbours about the incidents - where he found an insect in a dish prepared by her on one occasion, and a small steel wire of a washing-scrubber in another dish at another time. But not one of these two are said to have happened either on the day of her suicide or at any time immediately prior to it. And even otherwise, a mere teasing of wife by the husband possibly jocularly to his neighbours when his wife is sensitive to them only indicates that the husband could have been little more sensitive towards his wife, but still it do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498A. In that sense, both cruelty and abetment to suicide are not passive acts but seriously active acts, and they have to be established by the prosecution under all reasonable doubts.
7. In conclusion, this Court does not find that the prosecution has been able to travel the entire distance as required by law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond every conceivable and reasonable doubts. Surely, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai in S.C.No.7 of 2014 dated 26.02.2016, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The bail bond if any executed by the 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 appellant shall stand cancelled.
18.12.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr / ds To:
1.The Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram) Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery Judgment in Crl.A.No.185 of 2016 18.12.2024 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis