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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1699

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. NISHA BANU, JJ.
Shakul Hameed - Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari - Respondent
Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 304 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :R. Manickaraj, T. Nelson, Advocates.
For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu(Criminal side).

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302,406,498(A),323 and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 374 – Dowry – Offences of murder - Appellant is sole accused on file of learned Fast Track Mahila Court - He stood charged for offences, under Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 302 and 201 IPC - Trial Court, found appellant guilty, for offences under Sections 302 and 406 IPC - Deceased is wife of appellant - Their marriage during marriage, deceased's family has given 40 sovereigns of gold as dowry, apart from other household articles - Out of the wedlock, they got three children - After 5 years of marriage, quarrel started between spouses and appellant suspecting fidelity of deceased, used to beat deceased - Whether such long statement could be given by deceased on her own – Held, considering those circumstances, court are of considered view, it is highly unsafe, to convict accused, based on inconsistent dying declaration and doubtful minor testimony, hence, appellant is entitled for acquittal - Conviction under Section 406 IPC, it is only a testimony of PW1 and PW2, brother and mother of deceased, that at time of marriage, they have given money and jewels to accused as dowry - Except that oral testimony of interested witnesses, nothing available on record to bring out offence under Section 406 IPC - In that circumstances, accused is entitled for acquittal from that charge - In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence passed on file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all charges - Fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to appellant and bail bond shall stand cancelled – Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

V. Bharathidasan, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in S.C.No.66/2012 dated 18.6.2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, hear the counsel for the appellant/accused, set aside the order passed by the lower court and allow this criminal appeal.)

1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.66/2012, on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. He stood charged for the offences, under Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 302 and 201 IPC. The trial Court, found the appellant guilty, for the offences under Sections 302 and 406 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offences under Section 406 IPC. Trial Court acquitted the accused in respect of the charges under Sections 498(A), 323 and 201 IPC. Challenging the abovesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

The deceased Fathima, is the wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place in the year 2003, during the marriage, the deceased's family has given 40 sovereigns of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, apart from other household articles, worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. Out of the wedlock, they got three children. After 5 years of the marriage, quarrel started between the spouses and the appellant suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, used to beat the deceased. On 25.07.2011, at about 08.45 a.m., there was a quarrel, in which, the appellant attacked the deceased, poured kerosene and set fire on her. After hearing noise, neighbours rushed to the deceased's house and took her to one Joseph Hospital, Azhakiamandapam, where PW14, Doctor, has given first aid, then, he referred the deceased to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam, for further treatment. At that time, the deceased has stated to PW14, Doctor, that the appellant/accused attacked her, poured kerosene and set fire on her. PW16 Doctor, admitted the deceased in the Government Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, Kanyakumari, and issued the accident register(Ex.P4), and the deceased has stated to PW16, that she suffered fire injuries, while preparing hot water in her house. On the very same day, she was taken to one Ananthapuri Hospital at Trivandrum, against the medical advice, where she was admitted and given treatment on 27.07.2011, at about 12.25 p.m., PW20, Judicial Magistrate, Vanjiyoor, Trivandrum, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased(Ex.P7), after following all the legal requirements, after being satisfied that the deceased is conscious and fit state of mind, capable of giving statement. Wherein, the deceased has stated that, on 23.07.2011, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife, in which, the appellant beaten her, she fell down unconscious, later she recovering conscious and found fire over her body. Immediately, the appellant poured water, doused the fire, took her to Joseph Hospital, Azhakiamandapam, thereafter, to Government Hospital, Asaripallam, and she does not know who poured kerosene and set fire on her. However, she has stated that her husband alone was available in the house. PW19, Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the intimation, from the Ananthapuri Hospital, Trivandrum, went there and recorded the statement of the deceased and based on that, he registered the FIR in Crime No.724/2011, for the offences under Sections 307 IPC(Ex.P8), on 28.07.2011 at about 08.00 a.m. On receipt of the FIR, PW21, Inspector of Police, commenced the investigation, and went to the scene of occurrence, wherein, he prepared the observation mahazar(Ex.P1), rough s

      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