Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4813
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Anantha Krishnan
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu (East)
Crl.R.C.No.683 of 2005
Decided on : 12-11-2009
For the Petitioner:B. Kumar, Senior Counsel, for M/s. Suchit Anant Palande, Advocate. For the Respondent:A. Saravanan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
The sufficiency of evidence, particularly the dying declaration and corroborative evidence, is crucial in establishing guilt under IPC 498(A) in cases of dowry harassment.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Revision - IPC 498(A) - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC 498(A), IPC 304(B), IPC 306 - The court discussed the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt under IPC 498(A) based on the dying declaration and corroborative evidence. The interpretation of the dying declaration and the reliability of witness testimony were key in influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was alleged to have committed suicide due to dowry harassment. The trial court convicted the petitioner under IPC 498(A) and IPC 304(B) but the appellate court acquitted the petitioner under IPC 304(B) and modified the sentence under IPC 498(A). The court had to decide if the charge under IPC 498(A) against the petitioner was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration did not specifically allege dowry harassment against the petitioner and the evidence of witnesses was not sufficient to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner and allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the conviction and sentence under IPC 498(A).
Issues: The key issue was whether the charge under IPC 498(A) against the petitioner was proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the dying declaration and corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the dying declaration and the reliability of witness testimony to determine the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt under IPC 498(A). The lack of specific allegation of dowry harassment against the petitioner in the dying declaration and the unreliable witness testimony led to the court's decision to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under IPC 498(A) were set aside, with any fine amount paid by the petitioner to be refunded.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed by Judgment, dated 08.06.2005 made in C.A.No.84 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu at Tiruvallur, whereby the conviction of the petitioner/A1 under Section 498 A IPC alone was confirmed and modified the sentence to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 498 (A) IPC, instead of 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount Rs.5,000/-.
2. It is seen that the Assistant Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, being the trial court, after the trial, held that the guilt is proved and accordingly, convicted the petitioner/A1 under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment, under section 498 (A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence and also convicted him under Section 304 (B) IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. The co-accused/A2, mother-in-law of the deceased was acquitted from the charges framed against her. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/A1 under Section 498 (A) IPC alone, but modified the sentence into one year Rigorous Imprisonment, instead of three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine amount imposed by the trial court was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, however, the petitioner/accused was acquitted under Section 304 (B) IPC. Aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner/A1.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/A1 is the father-in-law of the deceased Sasikala and the marriage of the said Sasikala with Yuvaraj, son of the petitioner herein had taken place on 08.07.2001 and they lived at Melappedu village. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner/A1 and the co-accused, A2, demanded dowry by way of silver articles and 11 varisai thatthu for Aadi Maruvu, ½ sovereign jewel, cooker and grinder. As the same were not provided by the parents of the deceased Sasikala, she was tortured by the petitioner/A1 and his wife, the co-accused A2. On account of the same, on 16.08.2001 at about 1.00 p.m., the said Sasikala set fire to herself due to the dowry harassment and died thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 304 (B) IPC.
4. The Trial Court held that the charges framed against the co-accused/A2 and the charge against the petitioner/A1 under Section 306 IPC were not proved and accordingly, A1 and A2 were acquitted. On appeal, the appellate court held that the charges framed under Section 304 (B) IPC against the petitioner/A1, was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the petitioner/A1 was acquitted, however, the conviction was confirmed under Section 498 (A) IPC and sentence alone was modified by the appellate Court. In this revision, this Court has to decide whether the charge framed under Section 498 (A) IPC against the petitioner/A1 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as held by the Courts below, so as to convict the petitioner/A1 and whether the revision preferred by the petitioner/A1 has to be allowed on the grounds raised by him.
5. Mr.B.Kumar, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 argued that the guilt against the petitioner/A1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, for which he drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P.6, dying declaration and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the conviction is mainly based on Ex.P.6, dying declaration and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, based on which he placed his arguments that the alleged guilt against the petitioner/A1 has not been established. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the deceased was not arrayed as an accused in the case. The Courts below have given concurrent finding regarding
