Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1471
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Selvam – Appellant
Versus
State By Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2022 (@ Out of SLP (Criminal) No. of 2022 [Diary No. 27045 of 2021]
Decided On : 10-05-2022
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Advocate, Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Advocate, Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran. S, Advocate, Ms. Priya. R, Advocate, Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, Advocate, For the Appellant / Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 of the IPC in the context of dowry-related harassment and abetment of suicide.
Headnote:
Delay condoned. Leave granted. Appeal challenges judgment and final order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal NO.501 of 2009. The appellant, original accused No.1 and husband of the deceased 'Latha', alongwith his mother and sister was tried in the Sessions Court (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu in Sessions Case No.119 of 2007 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code ['IPC for short].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, along with his mother and sister, was tried for offences under Sections 498A, 306, and 304B of the IPC for dowry-related harassment and abetment of suicide of the deceased 'Latha'. The trial court convicted the appellant and his mother, while the sister was acquitted. The High Court affirmed the conviction against the appellant under Section 498A but acquitted him of the charge under Section 304B. The appellant was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 306.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 498A but acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B. The court imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 306.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of dowry-related harassment, abetment of suicide, and the appellant's culpability under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while there were dowry-related issues that led to the deceased's suicide, it was difficult to conclude that the offence under Section 304B was made out against the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 498A but acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B. The court imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 306.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B. The court imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 under Section 306.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal NO.501 of 2009.
4. The appellant, original accused No.1 and husband of the deceased "Latha", alongwith his mother and sister was tried in the Sessions Court (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu in Sessions Case No.119 of 2007 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code ['IPC for short].
5. The prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of four witnesses namely, PWs 1-3 and 9 to bring home the charge of dowry related harassment that the deceased was subjected to. It also led evidence in the form of assertions by the prosecution witnesses and also examined a police official about lodging of a complaint by the deceased on an earlier occasion. That complaint was compromised between the parties, whereafter the appellant and the deceased lived in the house of in-laws of the appellant for a while. According to the evidence of PW-1, during that period the appellant was quite well mannered but after the deceased went back to the house of the appellant, the harassment resumed, as a result of which the deceased committed suicide on the fateful day.
6. According to the post-mortem report, apart from the injury related to the suicide by hanging, there was no injury found on the person of the deceased.
7. After considering the entirety of the material on record, the trial court by its judgment and order dated 18.08.2009 convicted the appellant and his mother for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and they were awarded substantive sentence of one year and seven years respectively under the first two counts while no separate sentence was awarded for the offence committed under Section 306 IPC. Accused No.3 namely sister of the present appellant was however, acquitted of all the charges levelled against her.
8. The convicted accused namely, the appellant and his mother challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by filing Criminal Appeal No.501 of 2009 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
9. By its judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 which is presently under challenge, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant was affirmed by the High Court. However, benefit of doubt was extended to the mother of the accused and she was acquitted of all the charges levelled against her.
10. It is a matter of record that the appellant has undergone actual sentence of about a year. Further the appellant was taking care of two children namely the son aged about 15 years and the daughter aged about 10 years, born out of the wedlock with deceased Latha.
11. It is undoubtedly true that the appellant stands convicted under Section 498A of the IPC but the facts indicate that the allegations were generally made against all the accused and not directed specifically against the appellant. As a matter of fact, PW-1, father-in-law of the appellant accepted that after the settlement which was arrived at, the appellant and the deceased were staying with said PW-1 during which period the conduct of the appellant was completely to the satisfaction of said witness. PW-1 also went to the extent of saying that at the time when the marriage was settled between the appellant and his daughter, there was no demand of dowry but the in-laws of the deceased had generally told the witness that the parents of the deceased may give whatever they wished to extend to their daughter. Furthermore, no marks of any assault or physical injury, apart from the injury arising out of hanging, were found on the body of the deceased.
12. In the circumstances, it is extremely difficult to conclude that the offence under Section 304B of the IPC stood made out against the appellant. At the same time, the fact of the matter is that there were some dowry related issues which made the deceased commit suicide.
13.
