Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Srinath Prasad
Versus
State by Inspector of Police
CRL.A.No.60 of 2004
Decided On : 10-08-2010
IPC - Conviction under Section 498-A and Section 306 - [32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 306 IPC, Section 498-A IPC] - The court analyzed the admissibility and reliability of letters written by the deceased, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the defense's evidence. The court found that the letters did not contain incriminating materials to establish the offense under Section 306 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The court acquitted the appellant based on the lack of evidence to establish the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a young housewife, committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, her husband, subjected her to cruelty and demanded money, leading to her suicide. The defense denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the letters written by the deceased did not contain incriminating materials to establish the offense under Section 306 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The court acquitted the appellant based on the lack of evidence to establish the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and reliability of the letters written by the deceased, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the defense's evidence. The court also considered the alleged demand for money and the conduct of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the letters written by the deceased did not contain incriminating materials to establish the offense under Section 306 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The court acquitted the appellant based on the lack of evidence to establish the charges.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant based on the lack of evidence to establish the charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 498-A IPC.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.01.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Chennai, made in S.C.No.214 of 2001 convicting the appellant, who has been arrayed as A1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned trial Judge has not imposed any separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as it is covered under Section 306 IPC also.
2. There are three accused in this case, viz., A1 to A3 and the learned trial Judge disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitted A2 and A3 and convicted only A1/the appellant herein as stated above.
3. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder :
(i) A1 is the husband of the victim/Kumudini. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is a family friend of P.W.1.
(ii) A1 and the deceased got married in the year 1993. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given Rs.50,00,000/- apart from gold and silver articles. Out of their wedlock, they have blessed with two children, viz., two sons. After the marriage both the deceased and A1 lived at New York. A1 was doing business of export of cotton and linen at New York and he was running the company under the name and style as "Hill Crest International". The deceased and A1 were leading a happy married life till the year 1998. Trouble started at the end of 1998 and the relationship between A1 and the deceased has been strained as the deceased suspected that A1 was having intimacy with one Tanya Kapoor. The said person was supplying goods to the company of A1. The deceased suspected that A1 suffered loss in the business. A1 is alleged to have demanded one million dollars apart from demanding four million dollars as a loan from the deceased. P.W.1 has not accepted the said demand. P.W.1 verified through Sniff Capital and Marketing Company about the financial condition of A1s company. The report revealed that A1s company was financially in a bad shape. Therefore, P.W.1 refused to make arrangement for the loan to A1.
(iii) During April, 1999, the deceased came to India from U.S.A. with her husband A1 P.W.1 showed the report about the financial position of A1s company to the deceased as well as A1. After a week, A1 left again for U.S.A. leaving the deceased in India.
(iv) In the month of June 1999, the deceased joined A1 in U.S.A.. Thereafter, the deceased informed P.W.1 that she had seen the belongings of Tanya Kapoor in A1s apartment. A1 is said to have humiliated and threatened to kill the deceased. The deceased made an attempt to commit suicide and she was admitted in the hospital at
U.S.A. After treatment she was discharged from the hospital.
(v) A3 advised the deceased to come to India in the month of September, 1999 saying that separation may strengthen the relationship between the husband and wife. The deceased came to India leaving her two sons at U.S.A. Again, she went back to U.S.A. in the month of November 1999. There was no change in the conduct of A1. During the month of December 1999, the deceased came back to India along with her children and mother-in-law/A3. She was residing with her in-laws at Adyar. Thereafter, A1 instructed the deceased over the phone to leave from his parents house. A2 abused the deceased by calling her "bitch". The creditors have also started to give trouble. The deceased has decided to leave the matrimonial house. P.W.1 purchased a house at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, for the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was living with her children at Thiruvanmiyur. The deceased also joined in a job at Satyam Computers.
(vi) On 12.10.2000, A1 came to India from U.S.A., but not met the deceased. The deceased celebrated the birthday of h
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
