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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
Anthony Xavier - Appellant
Vs
State by: Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District.- Respondent
Crl.A.No.407 of 2014
Decided On : 09-12-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Kumarasamy.
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Karthikeyan

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304 (ii), 306, 201 r/w 511 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174, 313 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act - Section 4 – Offence of Murder - Abetment of suicide - Case of prosecution in nutshell is that deceased is wife of appellant/ accused - PW3 is brother of deceased - Marriage between deceased and appellant was solemnized as per Christian rites and customs - After marriage, both appellant and deceased leads matrimonial life in staff quarters of M.C.L Cement Company where appellant was working - Though both of them stayed in said staff quarters, everyday deceased went to Thiruvaiyar where she worked as tutor for tailoring - In meantime, deceased regularly contacted PW3 through telephone and made complaint against appellant by saying that appellant regularly consumes liquor and assaulted her - She specifically stated that by using cigarattes, appellant is causing injury to her – Held, It is an admitted fact that after occurrence, dead body of deceased was brought by accused to his native wherein witnesses who are all relatives of deceased were permitted to see dead body of deceased - In regular course, all employees who are working in different places are having habit of bringing dead body for burial to their native places - Therefore, subsequent conduct of accused herein is not sufficient to hold that accused alone committed offence as stated by trial Court - Even assuming that only due to harassment and cruelty committed by accused, deceased gone to extent of committing suicide, in order to prove same, prosecution has to prove abetment of thing committed by accused - Evidences given by prosecution witnesses did not constitute necessary ingredients which are necessary for 107 of Indian Penal Code (abetment of thing) - Therefore, at any event, in absence of evidence for establishing fact with respect to act committed by accused before occurrence, court cannot say that accused alone is liable for death of deceased - Court without considering same in perspective manner, came to conclusion that only accused / appellant had committed offence which is punishable under Section 304 (ii) of Indian Penal Code - Visualizing entire circumstances, it seems that prosecution fails to prove cause of death and about mensria having by accused - Court is of considered opinion that prosecution fails in its attempts to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

The matter was heard through "Video Conference".

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur dated 21.07.2014 in S.C.No.54 of 2013.

3. The appellant is the sole accused. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 21.07.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur convicted the appellant under Section 304 (ii) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of non-payment of fine, no sentence is awarded. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court by filing the present Criminal Appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the deceased Stellamary is the wife of the appellant / accused. PW3 viz., Christu David Raj is the brother of the deceased. On 09.11.2008, the marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized as per the Christian rites and customs. After the marriage, both the appellant and the deceased leads matrimonial life in the staff quarters of M.C.L.Cement Company where the appellant was working. Though both of them stayed in the said staff quarters, everyday the deceased Stellamary went to Thiruvaiyar where she worked as tutor for tailoring. In the meantime, the deceased regularly contacted PW3 through telephone and made complaint against the appellant by saying that the appellant regularly consumes liquor and assaulted her. She specifically stated that by using cigarattes, the appellant is causing injury to her.

5. On 02.01.2010, PW9 viz., Lindamary was informed by the appellant as his wife committed suicide through hanging and in turn, the same was informed to PW3. On receipt of the said information, PW3 ran to the quarters in which the deceased was staying and from there, he went to Vadugarpettai Village wherein the dead body of the deceased was found in the freezer box. On seeing the dead body, PW3 found that there was an abrasion in the neck of the deceased. Therefore, he lodged complaint before the Station House Officer, Kallakudi Police Station, which has been marked as Ex.P.1.

6. PW10 viz., Mr.Basheer, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kallakudi Police Station, on receipt of the complaint given by PW3, registered First Information Report in Crime No.1 of 2010 under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code which has been marked as Ex.P.5. After the registration of the First Information Report, PW10 forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur for investigation. On receipt of the First Information Report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police, Kuvagam Taluk.

7. PW14 viz., Mr.Solaimuthu, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report in Crime No.1 of 2010, re-registered the same in Crime No.3 of 2010 under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code in Thalavai Police Station which has been marked as Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he again forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur for investigation.

8. PW15 viz., Ramalingam, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur on 06.01.2010 took up the above referred First Information Report for investigation. On the same day, he visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW4 viz., Pethiraj and one Jayapal, he prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P.2 and drawn rough sketch which has been marked as Ex.P.8. Further, in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered material object viz., Saree which has been marked as M.O.1 under the cover of seizure mahazar as Ex.P.3.

9. In continuance of the investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 07.01.2020, at Pennadam Bus Stop, he arrested the accused and made arrangements for sending him to Judicial Custody

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