Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M. Janakaraj – Appellant
Versus
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306, 304-B, 406, 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174 - Dowry Prohibition Act -Section 4 and 6 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 32 – Offence of dowry death – Abetment of suicide – Charged - Appellant was employed as Police Constable in Armed Reserved Police - Within few months on her marriage deceased was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty - She was forced to aborted her fetus - Accused compelled her to give consent for marrying one with whom appellant was in love - When accused went for his Commando Training during month of he left at her parent home - On he came back to Coimbatore and stayed at PW-1 house along with his wife On left Coimbatore along with - Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that investigation in this case was very perfunctory and defective - Prosecution has screened several material evidences which will prove innocence of appellant and did not commit suicide due to any abetment by appellant - F.I.R and final report are contrary to evidence collected during course of investigation - Government Advocate Criminal Side submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that having a extra marital affair will fall under definition of cruelty – Held, If really accused has abated to commit suicide his conduct would have been otherwise - Content of letter Ex.P.2 stops with incidents occurred almost one year prior to occurrence - Very letter Ex.P.2 which had suddenly surfaced after two days of demise of deceased that to not from residence of her parent or residence of husband but from a third party saying that it contains certificate and produced to police after four days appears to be a total make belief statement of witnesses to introduce this document - This Court finds that suicide letter marked as not proved that it was written by deceased soon before her death - Further standard writing sent for comparison was not corroborated through any evidence to prove that writings in was compared with standard writing of deceased - When several documents containing admitted writings of available prosecution has sent note book which does not indicate it was her note book and contains hand writing of - Though a audio cassette has been marked as M.O.1 prosecution has not taken any care to transcript content of audio cassette - Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs State of cited supra suicidal tendency either due to sustain torture or by impulse should have been proved by evidence - Depositions of PW-1 to PW-4 are full of falsehood embellishment and more of exaggeration - In light of the above facts and circumstances conviction held by trial Court is liable to be set aside - Accordingly the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2013 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The appellant was found guilty for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced to under 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default 6 months S.I.
2. Based on the complaint given by one Thiru.Chitra Pandiyan, father of Maheswari (deceased), First Information Report was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. in respect of unnatural death of Maheswari (deceased) On 09.01.2003, at about 12.00 noon, the death has occurred, within 7 years of their marriage between the appellant Janakaraj and deceased Maheswari. The investigation was taken up by the respondent police. Based on the materials collected in the course of investigation particularly, the suicide note of the deceased, the final report was filed against the appellant and his parents.
3. Charges were framed against the appellant and others for offences under Sections 304-B, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 19 witness namely PW-1 to PW-19. Marked 22 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22) On the side of the defence 2 witnesses namely DW-1 and DW-2 were examined. The Forensic (Handwriting) Report and the reasoning sheet were marked as Court Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. 44 material objects were marked which are mostly the alleged Sreedhana articles given during the marriage, including a diary of the year 2002 marked as M.O.43.
5. The trial Court held that the conduct and behaviour of the 1st accused compelling the deceased to give consent for the 2nd marriage with his paramour has made the deceased Maheswari to take the extreme step of committing suicide. Accepting the Ex.P.2 suicide letter of the deceased Maheswari, the Court held that offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is made out. Hence altered the charges under Section 304-B of I.P.C. to 306 of I.P.C. and convicted.
6. Whereas, A2 and A3 the mother and father of the appellant were acquitted from all charges. For the charge of dowry harassment against all the three accused including the appellant the trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt and acquitted them all.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. the present appeal is preferred.
8. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the background of the prosecution case is extracted below in nutshell:-
On 26.02.2001, Janakaraj and Maheswari got married at Venkatesa Kalyana Mandapam, S.V. Puram, Udumalpet. The appellant was employed as Police Constable in Armed Reserved Police. Within few months on her marriage, the deceased Mageshwari was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty. She was forced to aborted her fetus. The accused compelled her to give consent for marrying one Rajeshwari, with whom the appellant was in love. When the accused went for his Commando Training at Chennai during the month of December 2002, he left Maheshwari at her parent home. On 06.01.2003, he came back to Coimbatore and stayed at PW-1 house along with his wife Maheshwari. On 07.01.2003 left Coimbatore along with Maheshwari. He told PW-1 the father of Maheshwari that he is going to Salem to meet his brother-in-law and return back on 11.01.2003. However, on 09.01.2003, PW-1 was informed over phone that Maheswari died consuming cow-dung power at the appellant house in Manupatti. Suspecting foul in the death of his daughter Thiru.Chitra Pandiyan father of Maheswari lodged the complaint (Ex.P.2) After the funeral of Maheswari one Gayathri (PW-15) friend of Maheswari living in the next house had given a bag containing certain documents, which was handed over to her by Maheswari. In that bag, they found the suicide letter (Ex.P.2) addressed to the Superintendent of Police narrating her turmoil’s and harassment at the hands of the appellant and requested the police to take action against her
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
