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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3013

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Ramamurthy
Versus
State rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police Harbour Range
Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2004
Decided on : 16-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:M.L. Ramesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Emalias, Government Advocate.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence related to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, abetment of suicide, and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 498A, 304B, 306 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 498A, 304B, 306 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 304B IPC, which deals with dowry death, and the evidence of cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. The court also considered the evidence under Section 306 IPC regarding abetment of suicide and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the conviction and sentence of the first accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC, related to the suicide of the wife of the accused within six months of marriage.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, confirming the conviction and sentence, while setting aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, abetment of suicide, and the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the lack of evidence to prove abetment of suicide.

Final Decision: The judgment partly allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC and confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

Judgment :-

1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2004, made in S.C.No.209 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Needhi Mandram, Chennai, whereby the first accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-in default in payment to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offences under sections 498A, 304B IPC and against the accused 3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 498A r/w 109 and 304B r/w 109 IPC and against A1 to A4 under Section 306 IPC, stating that Kala, who is the wife of A1 died on 10.08.2002 within six months from the date of marriage alleging that she died by committing suicide only due to harassment and cruelty caused by A1 to A4.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) Deceased Kala is the sister of P.W.1/Dayalan, P.W.2/Sekar and P.W.3/Shanthi. A1 is her husband, A2 is her mother-in-law, A3 is her sister-in-law and A4 is A3's husband. The marriage between A1 and Kala was performed on 22.02.2002. At the time of marriage, Kala was given 15 sovereigns of jewels and A1 was given 7 sovereigns of jewels. Apart from that, all the house hold articles were given to Kala. After the marriage, both of them were living happily for about 2 to 3 months. They were residing separately at No.73, Portugese Street, Muthiyalpettai, Chennai. Later on, when A2/mother-in-law came into their house and residing in the ground floor, the problem arose. Deceased Kala became pregnant. P.W.4/Jamuna who knows well about the family of Kala for the past 20 years, used to go to her house, at the time, P.W.4 found swelling in the face of Kala and one Jimmiki was found broken. Kala told her that she was not given proper food and her husband demanding T.V. and other articles, had beaten her. When Kala was in the house of A1, he did not take her to the Hospital on the allegation that Kala was not given motorcycle and the same was informed by the deceased to P.W.1/Dayalan over phone.

(ii) On 11.08.2002, at about 1.30 a.m. in the early morning, A1 told P.W.1 that Kala was suffering from chest pain and on the way to hospital, she died. When P.W.1 went to hospital, he was informed that since Kala died by hanging, the body has been kept in mortuary. After seeing the dead body, P.W.1/Dayalan gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.9.

(iii) P.W.9/Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police in Muthialpet Police station, received Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1 at 4.00 a.m. on 11.08.2002 and registered a case in Crime No.395 of 2002 under Section 304B IPC and prepared printed F.I.R. Ex.P12. Then he handed over the case to the Assistant Commissioner for investigation.

(iv) P.W.10/Rajagopalan, Assistant Commissioner, took up the matter for investigation at 6.00 a.m. on 11.08.2002. He rushed to the place of occurrence and drew rough sketch Ex.P13 and prepared Ex.P14 observation mahazar and seized M.O.1/cotton saree under Ex.P15 Seizure mahazar, in the presence of P.W.5/Palayam and one Kamaraj. Then he sent requisition to the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Chennai, to conduct inquest.

(v) P.W.7/Nagarajan, Tahsildar, who received requisition from the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P9. Then he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and A1. Statement of A1, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were marked as Exs.P8, P2 and P3 respectively. After examining the witnesses, he filed a final repot Ex.P10 and the deceased body was sent for postmortem.

(vi) P.W.6/Dr.Murugan, who conduced autopsy, gave Ex.P7 post-mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to hanging.

(vii) P.W.10 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, he examined P.W.6/Doctor and P.W.7/Sub-Inspector and record


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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