IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Lourduraj - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2016
Decided on : 28-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 174 (3) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498A and 306 – Dowry death - Guilty for Offences – Anticipatory bail - Post Mortem Certificate - Demand of dowry - Prosecution has examined and marked exhibits - On side of defence no witness has been examined and none of document was marked - Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence came to conclusion that appellant/accused found guilty for offences punishable Sections 498A and 306 IPC and accordingly convicted appellant/accused and sentenced him under Section 498A IPC to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and Section 306 IPC to undergo Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of amount in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment - Case of prosecution is that appellant/accused and deceased-Christy got married on as per their religious practice - Two months they lived happily at appellant's native place Village - Prior to days from appellant demanded a sum of three lakhs from deceased to get it from her father to start a canteen business.
Finding of the Court:
Only in event of those facts are established presumption in terms of Section 113 A of Act could be raised - In instant case prosecution has not been able to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty within meaning of Section 498A IPC - In case of alleged abatement of suicide there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to commission of suicide - Trial Court has erroneously accepted prosecution story - Realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating evidence for arriving at truth - Further lodged complaint with a delay of three days - Immediately after hearing about death of deceased he went to matrimonial home of his daughter and brought dead body to his house and done last rites - Since appellant and his family members are not participated in funeral of deceased only after three days from date of death he got suspicion over appellant and his family members - Therefore he lodged complaint after three days.
Result: Criminal Appeal Stands Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant was an accused in S.C.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions and Mahalir (Fast Track) Court at Thiruvannamalai. He was prosecuted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Polur Sub-Division, Kadaladi Police Station in Crime No.310 of 2005, for having caused cruelty and abetting suicide towards her wife, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
2. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to 10. On the side of the defence, no witness has been examined and none of the document was marked.
3. The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant/accused found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and accordingly convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him under Section 498A IPC to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 306 IPC to undergo Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Hence the appeal.
4. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused-Lourduraj and the deceased-Christy got married on 13.04.2005 as per their religious practise. Two months, they lived happily at the appellant's native place-C.Nammianthal Village. Prior to 20 days from 10.07.2005, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased to get it from her father to start a canteen business. On 08.07.2005, the deceased-Christy along with the appellant went to her parents house at Tiruvannamalai, where the deceased informed to her mother, Shanthi – P.W.2 about the requirement of Rs.3 lakhs to the appellant, for starting canteen business. At that time, father of the deceased went outside. Therefore, she informed the same to her mother and withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from her Bank deposit. On the same day itself, she returned to her matrimonial home. After coming to know the demand of the appellant, P.W.1-Francis, father of the deceased agreed to give Rs.1 lakh to the appellant and expressed his inability to give remaining Rs.2 lakhs, since he recently done the marriage of his deceased daughter. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a call to his daughter, at that time, appellant's sister-Priya attended the call and informed him that Christy went to rest room. After sometime, the appellant's mother called P.W.1 and informed about the death of his daughter. Immediately, P.W.1-Francis, P.W.2-Shanthi, P.W.3-John Bosco and other relatives went to C.Nammianthal Village where they seen the deceased lying in a cot. P.W.1 took the body of the deceased to his native place at Tiruvannamalai and done the last rites. Since the appellant's family members, including the appellant not participated in the funeral, having suspicion on them, P.W.1-Francis, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the respondent police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Mr.Purushothaman, Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.13 received the Ex.P.1-Complaint and registered a case initially under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C., against the appellant/accused, appellant's mother-Philomina and sister-Priya, in Crime No.310 of 2005. He forwarded the said complaint to the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District and other authorities concerned. Upon receiving the FIR, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Polur Sub Division – Rajasekar (P.W.16) took the case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.6) in the presence of the witnesses Murugan-P.W.4 and Susairaj. On 11.07.2005, he made arrangement to exhume the body of the deceased from the burial ground and informed to Anbarasu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai-P.W.15, through Nagamani, Head Constable-P.W.11. In the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Administrative Of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.