IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Baskaran, J.
Nagarajan – Appellant
Vs.
State Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2013
Decided On : 12-10-2018
Dowry Demand - Criminal Appeal - Cr.P.C. 1973, Section 374 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, Section 4(1) - IPC, Sections 498(A), 302, 304(B), 306 - The court discussed the demand for dowry, cruelty, and abetment to suicide. The judgment analyzed the evidence and concluded that the accused was guilty under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC, modifying the conviction and sentence under Section 304(B) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Umarani, married the accused against her parents' wishes. The accused demanded dowry and property, leading to the deceased's suicide by burn injuries. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 498(A) and 304(B) IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC, modifying the conviction and sentence under Section 304(B) IPC. The evidence of dowry demand was not proven, but the accused's actions amounted to cruelty and abetment to suicide.
Issues: The court analyzed the evidence of dowry demand, cruelty, and abetment to suicide. It considered the credibility of witnesses and the absence of direct evidence of dowry demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the demand for dowry was not proven, the accused's actions amounted to cruelty and abetment to suicide, leading to the modified conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC.
Final Decision: The accused was found guilty under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC, with a modified sentence under Section 306 IPC, and the sentence under Section 498(A) IPC was maintained.
S. Baskaran. J.
The above Criminal Appeal is filed u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. 1973 praying to set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, made in Sessions Case No.127 of 2009 dated 07-03-2012 against the appellant/accused.
The case of the prosecution:
1.1 The witnesses who deposed as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the mother and father of the deceased Umarani while the grandmother of the deceased is examined as P.W.3. All of them are residing at Voimedu village. The deceased Umarani is the second daughter of P.W.1 and 2. The appellant/accused Nagarajan who is a Police constable originally belonged to Thennadavur Village and his first wife is no more. As there was some dispute in his village, in view of the death of his first wife, the accused Nagarajan left Thennadavur Village and settled down in Voimedu village about seven years before the date of occurrence. Subsequently, the appellant/accused fell in love with deceased Umarani which was objected to by the Parents of the said Umarani. Inspite of her parents warning, the deceased Umarani married the accused and both of them were living in the house of the accused which is situated just 4 houses away from the house of P.W.1 and 2. After the marriage, the deceased and the appellant/accused lived together happily for 4 to 5 months only. Thereafter, the appellant with the intention of getting the property of P.W.1 and 2, who have no other legal heir except the deceased Umarani started torturing Umadevi insisting her to get the property of her parents. The same was intimated to P.W.4 and 5 who frequently compromised between the accused and the deceased. While the deceased subsequently gave birth to a female child and as things stood like that, on 23.06.2009, the deceased came to her parents house and informed P.W.1 and 2 about the torture of the accused demanding property and motorcycle. The deceased also requested her parents to warn the accused properly. While the deceased was in her parents home, P.W.3 her grandmother was also present. After hearing the deceased plea, her parents and grandmother [P.W.1 to 3] came to the house of the accused in the evening to talk to him. They waited at the house of the accused from 7.00 p.m. and he returned home only at about 9.00 p.m. The accused on seeing P.W.1 to 3, at his house, questioned "as to why you have come; have you come to do obsequies to your daughter". After coming inside the house, the accused caught hold of deceased Umarani and cut her hair by using a blade. When the parents of the deceased viz., P.W.1 and 2 tried to prevent the same, they were threatened by the accused. Immediately P.W.1 and 2 left the accused house to inform the Panchayatdars about the occurrence while P.W.3 stayed back in the house of the accused. At that point of time, the appellant/accused poured kerosene on his wife/deceased Umarani and set her ablaze. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the deceased, her parents P.W.1 and 2 rushed back to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying down with burn injuries in her bed room. On seeing the arrival of P.W.1 and 2, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.
1.2. P.W.4 Chelladurai who is residing in the same village stated that the accused and the deceased got married after loving each other and were living together happily for six months. Thereafter, the accused started to demand cash and motorcycle and the deceased told him about the torture of her husband. P.W.4 also stated that he met the accused on several occasions and requested him to wait for some time since no other legal heir is available to P.W.1 and 2 and they would do everything to support the accused. As requested by the deceased, on 23.04.2009, at about 9.30 p.m., when P.W.4 went to the house of the accused to advice him, he found P.W.1 to 3 crying outside the house of the accused. When he stepped into the house of the accused, he saw the deceased burning with flames and on seeing hi
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.