2019 Supreme(Mad) 1398

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur – Respondent
CRL.A. [MD]. No. 500 of 2017
Decided On : 07-01-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 417, 420,306, 309, 506(ii) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 313,374(2) and 207 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment to Women Act - Section 4 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 1989 - Sections 3(1)(x),3(2)(v) - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Abetment of suicide - Accused belongs to a Backward Class Community and deceased Seethalakshmi belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community - Appellant/accused and deceased were in love with each other for two years prior to date of occurrence - Appellant/accused had taken deceased to Coimbatore and stayed there for ten days and returned from Coimbatore and reached - After reaching appellant/accused refused to marry deceased on ground she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and had under threat of murdering her parents taken a letter from deceased stating that there is no connection between them - Thereafter appellant/accused had dropped deceased at and left away and thereby appellant/accused had cheated deceased on promise of marriage and later refused to marry her on ground of caste - Deceased had reached home and informed her parents about appellant/accused taking a letter from her under threat and refusal of appellant/accused to marry her - On next day at around deceased had gone to house of her relative one and immolated herself when nobody was in house - Deceased was taken to Government Hospital Kumbakonam and she died hours while under treatment - Further as per prosecution a statement had been recorded from her by respondent police based on which a case was registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 309, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment to Women Act and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act - After registration of case respondent took up case for investigation and after completion of investigation filed final report against appellant/accused for offences under Sections 417, 420, 306, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment to Women Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act before Additional District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate Kumbakonam and he had after taking cognizance and after compliance of procedure under Section 207 Cr.P.C finding that case was exclusively triable by Special Court committed it to Additional District and Sessions Judge Thanjavur - Whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Whether trial judge despite having rendered a categorical finding holding - Whether cruelty meted out to victim had in fact induced her to end life by committing suicide whether cruelty had been meted out to victim and that same had induced person to end his/her life by committing suicide - Held, Viewed from moral and political perspectives it has been observed that in liberal states rule about burden of proof has been elevated to status of fundamental human right encompassing assurance of liberty dignity and privacy of individual and from this standpoint it is essential that state should justify fully its invasion of individual’s interest by proving that he had committed an offence thereby abusing freedom of action accorded to him or her by liberal state - Significance of such presumption finds insightful expression in following extract of State Vs South African Constitutional Court in words of Sachs J - There is a paradox at heart of all criminal procedure in that more serious crime and greater public interest in securing convictions of guilty more important do constitutional protections of accused become - Starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted and subjected to ignominy and heavy sentences massively outweighs public interest in ensuring that a particular criminal is brought to book - Hence presumption of innocence which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial but to maintain public confidence in enduring integrity and security of legal system - Reference to prevalence and severity of a certain crime therefore does not add anything new or special to balancing exercise - Perniciousness of offence is one of givens against which presumption of innocence is pitted from beginning not a new element to be put into scales as part of a justificatory balancing exercise - If this were not so ubiquity and ugliness argument could be used in relation to murder rape car-jacking housebreaking drug-smuggling corruption - List is unfortunately almost endless and nothing would be left of presumption of innocence save perhaps for its relic status as a doughty defender of rights in most trivial of cases - Criminal Appeal Allowed