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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Vimala, S. Ramathilagam, JJ.
Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
N. Manokaran, Mohammed Riyas.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304 and 498 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174 – Murder – Death - Permanent Separation - Marriage of deceased and accused took place with consent of parents though it was originally proposed and finalized on account of blossoming of love between them - After their marriage couple lived i-e native place of appellant/accused during their marital relationship they were blessed with two children - However marital discord arose in their matrimonial life due to which accused and deceased had frequent quarrels with each other on account of accused suspecting fidelity of deceased - Due to said marital discord deceased came over to reside in erode district along with her husband and they were living in house of one junior paternal uncle of deceased - But even then strained relationship continued and accused continuously quarreled with deceased - Unable to bear torture deceased preferred a complaint before all women police station erode - Thereafter three months prior to occurrence deceased left accused and started living with her mother - Held, Thereafter deceased came to house of Pw-5 subsequently accused herein had arrived there and he used to have his stay there for two days and would return thereafter - Evidence of Pw-5 reveals that husband was in habit of seeing his wife at times in night i-e without knowledge of others - This part of evidence denotes that husband himself had to see wife without knowledge of mother that indicates that mother who is expected to be a bridge between husband and wife in case of disharmony has chosen to be a dividing wall between both of them and thus permanently mother had been cause for permanent separation between spouse - parents of spouse should be constructor not destructor of matrimonial life - it is better that if mothers after marriage of daughters understand boundary line between their family and family of daughter - Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Judgment dated 19.05.2017, made in S.C. No. 4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandaram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.

2. Accepting the prosecution case that the accused murdered his wife, the trial court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

3. Brief facts:

(i) The marriage of the deceased and the accused took place on 13.12.2009, with the consent of the parents, though it was originally proposed and finalized, on account of the blossoming of love between them. After their marriage, the couple lived in Pannimadai at Coimbatore, i.e. the native place of the appellant/accused. During their marital relationship, they were blessed with two children. However, marital discord arose in their matrimonial life, due to which the accused and the deceased had frequent quarrels with each other on account of the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased.

(ii) Due to the said marital discord, the deceased came over to reside at Periyasemur in Erode District, along with her husband and they were living in the house of one Chandrasekar, the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. But even then, the strained relationship continued and the accused continuously quarreled with the deceased. Unable to bear the torture, the deceased preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Erode. Thereafter, three months prior to the occurrence, the deceased left the accused and started living with her mother.

(iii) On 11.08.2016, at about 2.00 p.m. the appellant/accused came to the house of the deceased and called upon her to come and live along with him. Since she refused, a wordy quarrel ensued and enraged over the same, the accused beat the deceased with his hands and strangled her and dashed her head against the wall saying that, if she is not willing to live along with him, she may as well die. Due to the continued attack, the deceased fell down unconscious. The deceased was taken in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Erode, from where, she was referred to Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College and Hospital, Salem, where she succumbed to the injuries on 12.08.2016.

(iv) On the basis of the complaint given by PW-1, a case was registered in Cr. No. 444 of 2016 on the file of the Erode North Police, against the accused under Section 302 IPC, on 12.08.2016. PW-15, the then Deputy Superintendent Police went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P2 and drew rough sketch, Ex.P-14. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the file to PW-18, the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Erode, for further investigation.

(v) PW-18, on receipt of the file, arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement and handed over the investigation to his successor, PW-19, for further investigation. PW-19 recorded the statement of PW-1, the defacto complainant and after obtaining the postmortem report of the deceased, had chosen to add Section 498 (A) along with under Section 302 IPC and sent the altered report to the Court.

(vi) The prosecution, in order to substantiate the case against the accused, examined PW-s 1 to 19 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19. On the side of the accused, there is no evidence. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, while the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1, the mother of the deceased and PW-5 Chandrasekaran, brother-in-law of PW-1, i.e. t













































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