Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. ARUNACHALAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
Rajammal And Others Etc. - Appellant
Versus
State By D.S.P. Cb. C.I.D., Madras And Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 729 of 1986 & 800 of 1989 and Cri. Rev. Case No. 246 of 1987
Decided On : 03 August 1992
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 302, 34, 498A, 201, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - CHARGE OF MURDER, DOWRY DEMAND, CRUELTY, AND DESTROYING EVIDENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ACCUSED 1, 2, AND 3 - REVISION PETITION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF ACCUSED 1 AND 3 UPHELD - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED 2 AND 4 SET ASIDE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED - REASONS STATED.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the death of Uma Porkodi, the wife of accused 4 Asokan, who was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for not bringing adequate dowry. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Porkodi's parents-in-law (accused 1 and 3) and her husband's younger brother (accused 2), were responsible for her death by throttling. The trial court convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 3 under various sections, including murder, dowry demand, cruelty, and destroying evidence, while acquitting accused 2 and 4. The accused appealed against their conviction, and the public prosecutor filed a revision petition seeking to set aside the acquittal of accused 2 and 4.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, after examining the evidence and circumstances, found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused. It held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for not bringing adequate dowry, which constituted the motive for the crime. The court also found that the accused were present at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident and that their conduct immediately afterward indicated their involvement. The court rejected the defense's argument that the investigating agency failed to conclusively fix the presence of the accused at the scene, stating that the burden of proving otherwise lay with the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused for murder, dowry demand, cruelty, and destroying evidence. 2. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting accused 2 and 4. 3. Whether the accused's presence at the scene of the crime and their conduct afterward indicated their involvement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established a strong case against the accused based on the following factors: - Evidence of cruelty and harassment faced by the deceased due to dowry demands. - Presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident. - Conduct of the accused immediately afterward, including giving prevaricating versions of the death and attempting to influence witnesses. 2. The court found that the trial court erred in acquitting accused 2 and 4. It held that the evidence against them, including their involvement in the harassment of the deceased and their presence at the scene of the crime, was sufficient to establish their guilt. 3. The court held that the accused's presence at the scene of the crime and their conduct afterward, such as giving prevaricating versions of the death and attempting to influence witnesses, indicated their involvement in the crime.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by accused 1, 2, and 3 and allowed the revision petition filed by the public prosecutor. It set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in respect of accused 2 and 4 and convicted them under the relevant sections. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence of accused 1 and 3.
While the first accused Rajammal and the third accused Murugesan in S.C. No. 2 of 1986 ion the file of the District Judge, Chengalapattu are the appellants in C.A. 729 of 1986, the Public Prosecutor has preferred C.A. No. 800 of 1989 to set aside the order of acquired of second accused Balasubramaniam and forth accused Asokan and convict them for the offences with which they were charged. Crl.r.C. No. 246 of 1987 is by P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam against the judgment of the trail Court acquitting the accused 2 and 4.
2. Fourth Accused Asokan is the husband of deceased Uma Porkodi. Their marriage took place on 24-3-1985. Third accused Murugesan and first accused Rajammal are the parents of the fourth accused Asokan. Second accused Balasubramaniam is the younger brother of the fourth accused. They were charged before the trail court under four heads. The first charge against accused 1 to 3 under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was that on 18-6-1986 at about 10.00 a.m. in furtherance of their common intention they committed the murder of Uma Porkodi by manual strangulation. The second charge against the accused 1 and 3 under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act, 1961 was that on 18-6-1985 in the ordered of the same transaction from the date of marriage proposal they demanded directly or indirectly from P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and P.W. 7 Dharmar, the guardians of the bride, 50 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs. 10,000/- as Dowry at the time of marriage as consideration for the same which was particular complied with. The third charge against the accused 1 to 4 under S. 498(A), I.P.C. was that in the course of the same transaction on or about 18-6-1985 they subjected the deceased Uma Porkodi to cruelty and harassment by making unlawful demands of properties from her guardians. The fourth charge against the accused 1 to 3 under S. 201 I.P.C. was that at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction knowing that murder of Uma Porkodi had been committed, they caused the evidence of the said offences to disappear by attempting to set up the case of suicide by Uma Porkodi with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment.
3. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from evidence on record is an under :- The family of the accused is put up in the ground floor of No. 40/8, Vasantha Nagar, Tiruvottiyur. P.W. 4 Subramaniam and his wife P.W. 3 Saroja are residing in the upstairs of the same house. Both the third accused Murugesan and his son fourth accused Asokan are employed in stock Leyland near Ennore. P.W. 8 Mani who is a co-worker is a distant relative of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam. The said Panneer Selvam is the proprietor of Rohini Hotel in T. Nagar. P.W. 7 Dharmar is a first cousin of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam. Deceased Uma Porkodi is the brother daughter of P.W. 7 Dharmar. The father of the deceased is a deaf and dumb person P.W. 12 Ambujammal is the mother of Porkodi. In the beginning of 1985 Uma Porkodi was studying in the twelfth standard in Radhapuram in Tirunelveli District In February, 1985 P.W. 7 Dharmar brought his niece to Madras to arrange for her marriage. He came to know about the forth accused Asokan P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam and negotiations for marriage took place through P.W. 8 Mani P.W. 8 Mani brought third accused Murugesan and first accused Rajammal to the house of P.W. 1 Panneer Selvam in the first week of March, 1985. The parent of the fourth accused Asokan made a demand of 50 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 10,000/- in cash besides silver, aversions and brass vessels as dowry as dowry. After some bargain they agreed to receive 25 sovereigns and Rs. 10,000/- cash P.W. 12 Ambujammal handed over to P.W. 7 Dharmar 15 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 15,000/- cash for the purpose of marking jewels and purchases articles, and on 24-3-1985 marriage between Porkodi and fourth accused. Asokan took Place Ex. P. 6 is the marriage invitation. As undertaken 25 sovereign worth of jewels and Rs. 10,000/- in
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
