SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4489

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
N. Dhamodharasamy
Versus
E. Chandrasekaran & Others
Crl.R.C.No.1535 of 2005
Decided on: 28-10-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:L. Mahendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R7, C.S. Dhanasekaran, Advocate. R8, R. Muniapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side).

The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt and the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Headnote:

Dowry Death - Criminal Revision - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court acquitted the respondents 1 to 7 (A1 to A7) in respect of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased Kausalya's marriage was not happy, leading to a divorce petition. After a patch-up, she lived with her husband and in-laws. She was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state and was declared dead. Her father lodged a complaint expressing suspicion over her death, leading to the registration of a case against the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

Issues: The main issue was whether the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents suffered from any defect or illegality, capable of being interfered with in exercise of the powers of revision of the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that every person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that in cases of appeals against acquittal, the initial presumption of innocence is doubly strengthened by the judgment of acquittal. The court also emphasized the importance of direct evidence and the need to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision case, affirming the acquittal of the accused.

Judgment :-

This criminal revision case has been filed by the de-facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in the trial court, against the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in S.C.No.102/2005 on the file of the said court acquitting the respondents 1 to 7 herein (A1 to A7) in respect of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for which they were prosecuted.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal revision case, can be briefly stated as follows:-

i) The first respondent (A1) is the husband of the deceased Kausalya. Second respondent (A2) is the mother of the first respondent. Third and fourth respondents (A3 and A4) are the sisters of the first respondent. R5 and R6 are the husband of R3 and R4 respectively. R7-Kuppammal (A7) is the grandmother of the first respondent.

ii) The marriage between the first respondent and Kausalya (deceased) was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.05.2002 at Marundeeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. The matrimonial life of the first respondent and the deceased Kausalya was not happy, which lead to the filing of a HMOP by the first respondent in HMOP No.223/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore for dissolution of marriage. However, later on there was a patch up and they started living together, as a result of which they were gifted with a male child. The said child was born on 16.08.2004 at Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore. Thereafter, the deceased Kausalya, along with her child, was living in her matrimonial home at door No.M-17, Nethajipuram, Hudco Colony, Neelikonampalayam (Post), Coimbatore-641 033 with her husband (the first respondent herein) and her mother-in-law, the second respondent herein. About 45 days after the birth of the child, i.e. on 28.09.2004 at about 6.25 a.m, the deceased was taken to Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore in an unconscious stage. P.W.5-Dr.Jayanthi Pradeep, the Medical Officer on duty in the said hospital examined her and found her death and issued a death report to the effect that she was brought dead under Ex.D3.

iii) P.W.1-Damodarasamy (the petitioner in the criminal revision case) is the father of the deceased Kausalya. P.W.2-Viswanathan is the brother of deceased Kausalya. P.W.3.-Jahan Ara is the wife of P.W.2. P.W.7-Pushpaveni is another daughter of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.7, on information that Kausalya had been admitted in the hospital in a serious condition, went to the said hospital to meet Kausalya, but they were informed that she had died. Her body was buried in the burial ground at Singanallur, Coimbatore after the arrival of P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased. Till the funeral ceremony was over, none of them entertained any suspicion regarding the death of Kausalya and they were under the impression that the death was natural. However, after the funeral ceremony was over, based on some information furnished by the neighbours, the petitioner herein/P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 29.09.2004 under Ex.P1 on the file of All Women Police Station, Coimbatore North expressing suspicion over the death of Kausalya and praying for proceeding against the persons responsible for her death.

iv) Based on the said complaint, P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to the said police station, prepared Ex.P11-First Information Report and registered a case in Cr.No.30/2004 on the file of the said police station for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Pursuant to the registration of the case, the body was exhumed and P.W.13-Selvi.Karthika, the then Revenue Divisional Officer conducted inquest and prepared Ex.P8-Inquest Report. As per orders of P.W.13, the said body was sent to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital along with Ex.P10-Requisition for autopsy. P.W.6-Dr.Menaka Sekhar and one Savior Selva Suresh, as a team, conducted autopsy on 30.09.2004 at about 10.1










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top