Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4616
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
B. Ramamurthi & Another
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Police Washermenpet Range, Chennai
Crl.A.No.1528 of 2002
Decided On : 03-11-2009
For the Appellants:T.S.N. Prabhakaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of cruelty as per the definition under Section 498A of IPC, emphasizing willful conduct, mens rea, and the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 498A of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 498A - Summary: The court analyzed the evidence and interpretations of Section 498A of IPC, highlighting the definition of cruelty, willful conduct, and mens rea. The court found that the prosecution evidence lacked proof of cruelty by the accused as contemplated under Section 498A of IPC, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was subjected to demands for jewels, denied the balance of dowry, and faced cruelty from the accused. The deceased ultimately succumbed to burn injuries, leading to the filing of a case under Section 498A and 304B of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC but acquitted them of the charges under Section 304B. The court highlighted the lack of proof of cruelty by the accused as per the definition under Section 498A of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demands for dowry, cruelty faced by the deceased, and the interpretation of the provisions under Section 498A of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proof of cruelty as per the definition under Section 498A of IPC, including willful conduct, mens rea, and the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of the charges against them.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandaram passed in SC.NO.113/1999 dated 210. 2002, convicting and sentencing the Appellants under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment, however acquitting them from charges under Section 304B of IPC.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are recapitulated as under:-
The 1st accused is the husband of the deceased Sugandhi and the 2nd accused is the mother-in-law. PW.1, Meenambigai is the mother of the deceased and the deceased was born to one Sadagopan and Meenambigai. The marriage between the deceased and the 1st accused took place on 16. 1995 and the accused demanded 10 sovereigns of jewels at the time of marriage, but PW.1 was able to give only 7 sovereigns of jewels, since the Binny Mill, where her husband was working at the time of the marriage of the deceased was under lock out. The 1st accused and Sugandhi lived together as husband and wife along with the 2nd accused for about 6 months happily. Afterwards, at the instigation of the 2nd accused, the 1st accused started demanding three sovereigns of jewels from the deceased.
3. Whenever PW.1 visited the house of the deceased, she used to complain that the accused are demanding three sovereigns of jewels and they subjected her to cruelty on that account. The deceased delivered a male child on 35. 1996. Since PW.1 did not give the balance of three sovereigns of jewels, Seemandam function was not informed to PW.1 and she was not permitted to see the child. The deceased was also not permitted to go to her parents house for delivery. On 10. 1996, the 1st accused sent away the deceased from his house retaining the child with him, which necessitated the deceased to prefer a complaint to the Women Police Station on 10. 1996. Subsequent to the complaint, there was a panchayat at the instance of the 1st accused and the deceased was taken to the house of the 1st accused.
4. On 312. 1996, the deceased was beaten by 1st accused and her sister by name Hemapriya, who came to see the deceased, on the said date, was also beaten by the 1st accused. On 1. 1997 also there was a complaint by the deceased to PW.1 that she was beaten by the 1st accused. PW.1 gave treatment to the deceased and left her in the house of the 1st accused. On the next day, there was a telephone message informing PW.1 that the deceased had been admitted at Priya Hospital due to burn injuries. The deceased was admitted in KMC Hospital on 11.11997 at 11.00 a.m. and when she was examined by PW.9 Doctor Angeline Selvaraj, he found that the deceased was conscious and had given a statement to the Doctor that she poured kerosene to herself and set fire and thereby attempted to commit suicide. She succumbed to injury on 11. 1997 at 9.30 a.m. and Ex.P6 is the death intimation.
5. Pw.1 preferred a complaint Ex.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Vannarapettai Police Station and on receipt such complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.69/97 under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and prepared Ex.P11 printed FIR. Based upon the FIR, PW.14 the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the case for investigation, visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P3 and a rough plan Ex.P12. He also prepared a seizure mahazar Ex.P2 and he recovered a white cane measuring 3 litres and also a match box and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
6. PW.11, Jagadeeswari, who was working as Personal Assistant to the Chennai District Collector sent a request to the Tahsildar and pursuant to it, PW.8, Palanisamy, Tahsildar of Tondiarpet conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex.P5, stating that there was no demand of dowry in the death of the deceased and in the said report it was mentioned that the
