IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Dhanapal - Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Nagapattinam District - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 483 of 2015
Decided On : 16-09-2016
Criminal Produce Code, 1973 - Section 174 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 – Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-A - Criminal trial – Offence of Abetment of suicide – Appeal against conviction - Conviction of appellant/A1 is that deceased was wife of P.W.3, who is brother of appellant/A1. P.W.1/de-facto complainant and P.W.2 are mother and father of deceased - Deceased was given in marriage to P.W.3, which took place and out of their wedlock, a male child was born to them - P.W.6 is brother of deceased mother (P.W.1) - Deceased used to pledge jewels and household brass articles with P.W.6. For this purpose, P.W.6 Ilanagovan used to very often visit house of deceased - Appellant/A1, along with his wife/A2, were living adjacent to house of deceased, and frequently, A1 used to indulge in quarrel with deceased and her husband - Since P.W.6 used to very often visit house of deceased, appellant/A1 used to speak ill of deceased, by connecting her with P.W.6. In this situation, daughter of appellant/accused eloped with one Kishore - Held, There is evidence to effect that there is a positive act on part of appellant/accused to induce or intentionally aid deceased by an act to drive deceased with no other alternative but to go to such an extent of committing suicide - Thus, in this case, dying declaration and evidence available on record shows that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt - Court and discussion made hereinabove, it is not necessary to deal with each and every decision of Courts relied on by learned counsel on either side, as it is suffice to state that material evidence available on record shows that appellant/A1 had abetted crime under Section 306 IPC, leading to death of deceased – Court view that sentence of imprisonment imposed on appellant/A1 can be reduced from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment - Accordingly, while confirming conviction imposed on appellant/A1, this Court reduces period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on appellant/A1 from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment - Appeal is partly allowed.
1. The appellant/A1 stood for trial along with his wife (A2); A2 was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 against the judgment dated 07.07.2015 in S.C.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, in and by which, he was convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellant/A1 is that the deceased Shanthi was the wife of P.W.3, who is the brother of the appellant/A1. P.W.1/de-facto complainant and P.W.2 are the mother and father of the deceased Shanthi. The deceased was given in marriage to P.W.3, which took place on 29.08.2003, and out of their wedlock, a male child was born to them. P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased Shanthi's mother (P.W.1). The deceased used to pledge jewels and household brass articles with P.W.6. Hence, for this purpose, P.W.6 Ilanagovan used to very often visit the house of the deceased Shanthi. The appellant/A1, along with his wife/A2, were living adjacent to the house of the deceased, and frequently, A1 used to indulge in quarrel with the deceased and her husband. Since P.W.6 used to very often visit the house of the deceased, the appellant/A1 used to speak ill of the deceased, by connecting her with P.W.6. In this situation, the daughter of the appellant/accused, namely Sundari eloped with one Kishore. On 29.07.2010, when the deceased Shanthi was with her husband, the uncle of the deceased, i.e. P.W.6, came to her house and the husband of the deceased told P.W.6 that here-after he should not come to his house and sent him out. At that time, the accused persons scolded the deceased in filthy words, stating that it is better for her to die than to live. Due to the continuous mental torture given by the accused persons, the said Shanthi (deceased) poured kerosene all over her body and set fire to herself, thereby she sustained burn injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital by "108 Ambulance" and was admitted on 29.07.2010 by P.W.3. On the next day, i.e. on 30.07.2010 at about 2 p.m., the said Shanthi succumbed to injuries. P.W.12 Inspector of Police, who received the intimation, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1-mother of the deceased and came back to Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.242 of 2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Since she died within seven years of her marriage, P.W.12 sent a copy of the complaint Ex.P-6 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for further action. P.W.14-RDO conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the hospital as to the cause of her death and recorded the statement of the Panchayatdars, and thereby, P.W.14 came to the conclusion that the death was not due to dowry harassment. Ex.P-10 is the inquest report. He forwarded his enquiry report Ex.P-9 to Police. P.W.15 DSP took up the case for further investigation. He went to the place of occurrence on 31.07.2010 and recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-12 rough sketch. He recovered M.O.1 light yellow colour plastic kerosene can (of approximately 5 litres capacity). On 18.10.2010, he sent Ex.P-13 alteration report with regard to the alteration of offences, to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. After completing all formalities and investigation, P.W.15 DSP filed charge sheet against the accused before the trial Court. The case was taken on file by the trial Court in S.C.No.59 of 2011. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked and M.O.1 was produced. When the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime. They neither examined any witness, nor marked
Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal
Kantilal Martaji Pandor Vs. State of Gujarat and another
Laxman V. State of Maharashtra
P. Mani Vs. State of T.N. 2006 (3) SCC 161
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 951
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.