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) 3414

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA, J.
Palanivel
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police Thalaivasal Police station
Criminal Appeal No.791 of 2005
Decided On : 03-08-2012

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:V. Srinivasan, S. Kalyanaraman, Advocates.
For the Respondent:C. Emalias, Government Advocate (crl.side).

Ratio
A person against whom charges were framed for an offence under Sec.306 IPC could be convicted for an offence under Sec.498A IPC without framing a specific charge under that section.

Headnote:(A)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.221, 222-Indian Penal Code, 1860(45 of 1860)-Sec.306, 498A-Criminal trial-Women-Harassment-Suicide-Charge-Defect-On an allegation that the appellant, the maternal uncle of the deceased had slapped her and took her to her matrimonial home which resulted in her humiliation and committing suicide, the appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Sec.306 IPC and after trial, he was convicted for an offence under Sec.498A IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment and also fine against which the appellant preferred appeal-While the appellant contended that in the absence of charge framed for an offence under Sec.498A IPC, he could not have been convicted and on the facts, his conviction was bad in law which plea was resisted by the respondent-Held, as the ingredients for the offences under Sec.498A and 306 IPC were same, a person prosecuted for an offence under Sec.306 IPC could be convicted under Sec.498A IPC-Evidences available on record proved the commission of offence under Sec.498A IPC-On the facts of the case, sentence of imprisonment was substantially reduced and the fine was enhanced-Appeal was partly allowed.

       (B)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.221, 222-Indian Penal Code, 1860(45 of 1860)-Sec.306, 498A-Criminal trial-Women-Harassment-Suicide-Charge-Defect-A person against whom charges were framed for an offence under Sec.306 IPC could be convicted for an offence under Sec.498A IPC without framing a specific charge under that section.

       Considering the above decisions, even though the accused was not charged under Section 498A IPC, as per the dictum of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 11 (K.Prema S.Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others), I am of the view, the appellant may be convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC, even no separate charge has been framed under Section 498A IPC. In my opinion, the available evidence are sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Para 14

       

Judgment :-

1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.08.2005, made in S.C.No.187 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo 30 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default in payment to undergo five months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused stating that 10 months prior to 14.01.2002 (i.e) on the date of occurrence, the marriage was performed between the deceased Jayakodi and her husband Selvaraj, who left the village for attending rig work after leaving his wife with the custody of his maternal uncle viz., Palanivel, the accused. On 10.01.2002, Jayakodi came to her parents house to give send-off to his uncle Arumugam, who was about to go to Sabari mala and stayed there till 14.01.2002. On 14.01.2002, at about 5.00 p.m., the accused came there and abused her in filthy language and had beaten her with his hands. The deceased Jayakodi unable to bear the above humiliation caused by the accused, committed suicide during night hours on 14.01.2002 by consuming ettikottai, which is a poisonous substance. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) P.W.1/Sellammal is the mother of deceased Jayakodi. P.W.5/Deivanai is the mother-in-law of deceased Jayakodi and mother of Selvaraj. One Subramani and the accused Palanivel are P.W.5's brothers. Marriage was performed between the deceased Jayakodi and one Selvaraj, 10 months prior to the date of occurrence (i.e.) on 14.01.2002. After the marriage, they lived together at the house of P.W.5. For avocation, Selvaraj went to North India to do rig work. Hence, he left his wife under the care and custody of the accused, who is his maternal uncle. P.W.4/Chinnammal is the sister of P.W.1 and her husband Arumugam was about to go to Sabari mala and that the deceased Jayakodi was permitted to go to her maternal home and she came there on 10.01.2002. After gave send off to her maternal uncle Arumugam, she stayed in her maternal home. On 14.01.2002, at 5.00 p.m., the accused came there and abused her in filthy language and assaulted her and dragged her to his house. On the same day, during night hours, deceased Jayakodi consumed ettikottai, a poisonous substance and informed the same to her mother-in-law/P.W.5. Immediately, deceased Jayakodi was taken by P.W.5 and two others, before P.W.7/Velayutham, who is the Native Doctor, gave native treatment to her and declared her dead. Then, P.W.5's brother Subramani intimated the same to P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, rushed to the house of P.W.7 and witnessed her daughter dead.

(ii) On 15.01.2002, at 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.12/Mohanraj, the then Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police station, who received the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P10. Since the deceased died on the suspicious circumstance within seven years of her marriage, P.W.12 forwarded the same to P.W.10/Arumugam, an R.D.O. and P.W.11/Sundaram, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attur.

(iii) P.W.10 after receiving original F.I.R. from P.W.12, conducted inquest on the body of Jayakodi in the presence of Panchayatdars. During the enquiry, he came to know that the death is not due to dowry demand and his report was marked as Ex.P6.

(iv) P.W.10 after conducting inquest, sent the body for post-mortem. P.W.9/Dr.Gurunatha Kandaiya, along with Dr.Nimmi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. Post-mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P3. He opined that the deceased would have appeared to died of probably poisoning 24 hours to 30 hours prior to autopsy.

(v) After receiving F.I.R. copy, P.W.11 took















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

SupremeToday

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