IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
R. Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilgiri – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2016
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Dowry Demand - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code, Section 306 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence, including the post mortem reports, statements of witnesses, and the inquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, to conclude that there was no dowry demand and the deceased led a happy married life. The court also examined the issue of cruelty on the part of the appellant, ultimately finding that the evidence did not establish any cruelty and that the deceased's suicide could not be attributed to the appellant. The court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge and acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 306 of the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Rubini, married the appellant after falling in love with him. She later committed suicide, leading to the appellant's conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no dowry demand and that the deceased led a happy married life. It also concluded that the evidence did not establish any cruelty on the part of the appellant, and the deceased's suicide could not be attributed to the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the presence of dowry demand, the alleged cruelty by the appellant, and the cause of the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and highlighted that suspicion alone cannot replace the test of proving the case beyond reasonable doubts. It also stressed that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish cruelty and that the deceased's suicide in the matrimonial home does not lead to a presumption of cruelty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge and acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: APPEAL under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 25.11.2015 made in S.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Ooty.)
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Ooty in S.C.No.4 of 2014, dated 25.11.2015, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Code) and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is as hereunder:
(i) The deceased one Mrs.Rubini is the daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are her brothers. P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. The appellant completed his 12th Standard and he was working in the business establishment of one Ashraf of Kothagiri. The appellant hails from Kerala and the deceased Rubini hails from Baduga community. The appellant and the deceased Rubini fell in love with each other and at that point of time, the deceased was studying B.E.course at Vellalar Engineering College at Erode. They waited till the deceased completed her course and became a major and on 13.12.2007, the appellant married the deceased Rubini at a temple. Thereafter, they started living in the house of the appellant at Kothagiri.
(ii) The appellant started demanding dowry from the deceased Rubini and she was subjected to cruelty in this regard. Ultimately, the deceased Rubini, not able to take it any more, decided to end her life and accordingly, on 17.3.2008 at about 11 AM, she committed suicide by hanging in the house of the appellant.
(iii) PW1, who is the father of the deceased, was informed about the death of his daughter and he visited the deceased in the hospital at Kothagiri. Since P.W.1 entertained a doubt as to the nature of death of his daughter, he gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) to P.W.12, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police at Kothagiri Police Station. Based on the same, a first information report (Ex.P.7) came to be registered on 17.3.2008 at about 2.30 PM in Cr.No.94 of 2008 for the offence under Section 304-B of the Code.
(iv) The investigation was taken up by one Ravindran. He received the first information report at about 3.45 PM on 17.3.2008 and went to the scene of crime at about 4 PM. He prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.17) in the presence of witnesses. The Investigation Officer also recovered M.O.9 to M.O.11 in the presence of the very same witnesses under recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P.3.
(v) Since the death had taken place within seven years from the marriage, a requisition was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.15) to conduct an inquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded to the Government Hospital and he conducted an inquest over the body in the presence of panchayatdhars and the inquest report has been marked as Ex.P.14. Further, the post mortem was conducted by P.W.13. Since the parents and the relatives of the deceased insisted for a re-post mortem, the same was done by P.W.14 by forming a team. The original post mortem report has been marked as Ex.P.10 and the re-post mortem report has been marked as Ex.P.12.
(vi) For proper appreciation, the injuries recorded in Ex.P.12 are extracted as hereunder:
“External injuries : (1) Ligature mark extending from level of left mastoid across anterior midline of neck ending 4 (four) cm below right mastoid bone length about 20 cm breadth about 2 cm. (2) Abrasion 0.5 X 0.5 cm outer aspect of left upper eyelid. (3) 50 cm sutured incision in anterior midline extending from sub mental region to 3 cm above pubis. (4) 33 cm sutured incision in anterior hairline extending from left to right earlobe.
Tongue inside mo
The burden lies on the prosecution to establish cruelty and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion alone cannot replace the test of proving the case beyond reasonable doubts.
The presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence to prove guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law.
The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused to drive ....
The court concluded that mere harassment without direct instigation to commit suicide does not satisfy the requirements of Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, thus leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
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.