Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Shanmugam - Appellant
Versus
State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani Division - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 254 of 2014
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A and 304-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 –Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - section 145 - Dowry death - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing - Appellant committed cruelty on his wife deceased, demanded cash and jewellery for starting poultry farm - Not only that he was addicted to drinking, not regularly going for work and harassing his wife to get money from her parents, by physically assaulting her - Unable to bear cruelty committed on her, demand of dowry, deceased committed suicide by hanging - Whether finding of learned trial Judge that appellant was guilty under Section 498-A IPC for subjecting deceased to cruelty and sentence imposed thereon are correct, in accordance with law and not vitiated by any infirmity or perversity – Held, Court finds that learned trial Judge has rightly found appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him - Cruelty differs from person to person and case to case - What one may perceive as cruelty may not be cruelty to another - Court have to decide what amounts to cruelty in a particular case on basis of facts and circumstances, educational, social, cultural and economic background of victim and accused and on broad definition given in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code - Facts, situation in cases relied on by learned counsel for appellant is entirely different from this case - Therefore, this court finds that judgments relied on by learned counsel for appellant are not applicable to facts and circumstances of this case – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G. Chandrasekharan, J.
The prosecution agency laid a final report against the appellant/accused under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the appellant committed cruelty on his wife deceased Krishnaveni, demanded cash and jewellery for starting poultry farm. Not only that he was addicted to drinking, not regularly going for work and harassing his wife to get money from her parents, by physically assaulting her. Unable to bear the cruelty committed on her, the demand of dowry, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 27.10.2011.
2. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:-
The marriage between the appellant and the deceased Krishnaveni was solemnised in 2005. They have son and daughter. PW.1 is the father, PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. After marriage, the appellant worked in abroad for two years, thereafter he was not regularly employed. The deceased was working in Chintamani Medical Stores' at Erode, later transferred to Bhavani Branch. The appellant sold the jewels given to the deceased and children and spent the money. He also pledged the gold chain of the deceased. He sent the deceased to PW.1 to get money for starting a business. He had beaten her and directed her to get money from PW.1. The physical harassment continued. The appellant made the deceased to resign her job. PW.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a poultry farm. Not satisfied with that, the appellant directed the deceased to get Rs.10,00,000/- or the title deed of the house from PW.1. One Thursday, the deceased came to the house of PW.1 and told him that the appellant asked her to get money else, she should not return home. On the same night, PW.1 received the information that his daughter was dead. He went to mortuary and saw the dead body of his daughter. Then he went to police station and gave Ex.P1-complaint. PW.2, the son of PW.1 and brother of the deceased corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the frequent demand of money, harassment of the deceased by the appellant and ultimately the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. PW.3 is the relative of PW.1 and PW.2. He stated about convening panchayat in the dispute between the appellant and deceased and also the quarrel between the appellant and deceased on the date when the deceased committed suicide, his intervention and advice to them not to fight.
3. On receiving intimation from Government Hospital, Bhavani PW.7- Special Sub-Inspector of Bhavani Police Station and on receiving the complaint from PW.1 in the police station, he registered FIR in Crime No.609 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The FIR is Ex.P14 and sent the original FIR to Revenue Divisional Officer and the copy to the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. PW.9 was working as a Deputy Collector in Thanjore District Collector's Office. On 27.10.2011, he received First Information Report in this case and visited Bhavani Government Hospital and conducted inquest. He enquired the parents of the deceased, namely, Sengottiyan, Sivagami, Sibblings Subramanian, Chithra, the appellant Shanmugam, Rathinammal and panchayatdars and recorded their statements. As per enquiry and his Ex.P15 report, he came to the conclusion that the appellant harassed and committed cruelty on the deceased Krishnaveni demanding dowry and was responsible for her suicide and recommended to prosecute the appellant under Section 304-B IPC.
4. PW.6 – Dr. Sangeetha conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased as per Ex.P4 requisition of PW.9. During her examination, she found that,
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
