Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Venugopal, J.
Kamaraj - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police Karumanthurai Police Station Salem District - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2016 and Crl. M.P. No. 4650 of 2016
Decided On : 18-01-2017
Subject
Criminal Law - IPC
Act Referred
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT : S.4
EVIDENCE ACT : S.113(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a), S.306, S.107
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498 (A) and 306 – Criminal produce Code, 1973 - Section 428 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113(A) - Criminal Trial – Offences of cruelty and Abetment of Suicide – Demand of Dowry - Scene of occurrence – Appeal against conviction – P. W.1 in his evidence had clearly deposed that her daughter, after her marriage, had not gone for employment - On behalf of Accused (Appellant side), no witnesses were examined to show that subsequent to marriage of Banu Priya, she had gone for employment or had any relationship with other person - Therefore, trial Court, on basis of witnesses examined on side of Prosecution (Respondent) that Accused (Appellant) because of his habit of taking liquor and since he demanded money to be brought for purchasing a new bike, he beat Banu Priya quite often, scolded her and caused trouble to her and in regard to this, P.Ws.1 and 2, on numerous occasions, spoke to Parents of Accused and that on day of occurrence, Accused (Appellant) quarrelled with her and also caused cruelty by beating her and Banu Priya heartbroken committed suicide, for which Accused had abetted etc - Held, Presumption under Section 113(A) of Act, 1872 is discretionary and Court concerned can consider the nature of cruelty to which a woman was subjected to, especially in regard to meaning of the word cruelty occur in Section 498(A) of IPC - Further, maximum prescribed punishment under Section 306 of IPC is imprisonment for a period of ten years. It is to be pointed out that said punishment is not a minimum one - Mere demand of Dowry is punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and an element of cruelty is not necessary - Considered view that imposition of punishment of three years Rigorous Imprisonment by trial Court under Section 498(A) of IPC is on higher side - Hence, this Court reduces same to that of 1½ years Rigorous Imprisonment - Based on strange and peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, is of the earnest opinion that imposition of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment by trial Court on Accused (Appellant) is an excessive one and this Court, taking note of fact that Accused (Appellant) is an young man aged about 29 years, to subserve ends of justice, reduces imposition of punishment of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment to that of five years Rigorous Imprisonment - Court is not upsetting imposition of fine in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC – Conviction modified - Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Udaykumar for M/s. Karan and Uday
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Ravichandran
M. Venugopal, J.
The Appellant (Accused) has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as aggrieved person), as against the Judgment dated 11.03.2016 in S.C.No.90 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.
2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.90 of 2013 dated 11.03.2016, at paragraph-27 had observed that "PW. 5 (Thangaraj) had stated that the Accused Kamaraj (Appellant) had informed that Banu Priya (his wife) should not proceed to Salem quite often". But in this regard, on behalf of the Accused (Appellant), no question was put to PW.5. Likewise, PW.1 in his evidence had clearly deposed that her daughter, after her marriage, had not gone for employment. On behalf of the Accused (Appellant side), no witnesses were examined to show that subsequent to the marriage of Banu Priya, she had gone for employment or had any relationship with other person. Therefore, the trial Court, on the basis of the witnesses examined on the side of the Prosecution (Respondent) that the Accused (Appellant) because of his habit of taking liquor and since he demanded money to be brought for purchasing a new bike, he beat Banu Priya quite often, scolded her and caused trouble to her and in regard to this, P.Ws.1 and 2, on numerous occasions, spoke to the Parents of the Accused and that on the day of occurrence, the Accused (Appellant) quarrelled with her and also caused cruelty by beating her and therefore, Banu Priya heart broken committed suicide, for which the Accused had abetted etc., and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Accused (Appellant) was guilty under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of IPC.
3. It comes to be known that the Accused (Appellant) was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 498 (A) of IPC and further, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of said fine amount, he was directed to undergo further three months Simple Imprisonment. Insofar as the offence under Section 306 of IPC was concerned, the Accused (Appellant) was imposed with a punishment of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and apart from that, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo additional sentence of six months imprisonment. Moreover, the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period already undergone by him was directed to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
4. Assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the Judgment passed by the trial Court, in S.C. No. 90 of 2013 dated 11.03.2016, the Accused (Appellant) has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court contending that PW.1 had deposed that he went to the Police Station and gave Complaint Ex.P1 to PW. 9 Special Sub-Inspector (Manivel). Further, it is represented on behalf of the Accused (Appellant) that Ex.P1 (Complaint), dated 06.08.2012, reveals that one month prior to the occurrence, the Accused (Appellant) demanded with the Deceased a Motorcycle to be purchased by her Parents and the Parents of the Deceased had compromised the issue with the aid of the Appellant's Parents.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that on 02.08.2012, the Appellant and the Deceased Banu Priya (his wife) went to her Parents' house for 'Aadi Function' and both of them stayed there and on 03.08.2012, they returned from PW.1's house. Further, it is the stand of the Appellant that PW.1, father of the Deceased, gave Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and some household things for 'Aadi Function' and that on 04.08.2012, at about 4.30 p.m. the occurrence took place. Therefore, the stand of the Accused (Appellant) is that there was no demand of Motor Bike either on 02.08.2012 or on 03.08.2012 and therefore, the conviction under Section 498 (A) of IPC was not establishe
