IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
M. Karthick - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about fir belatedness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. three versions of dying declaration. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. observations on witness credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. arguments regarding prosecution evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's reasoning on dying declarations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final observations on the case. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. conclusion of the judgment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment dated 27.01.2016 made in S.C. No. 72 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.
2. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri by judgment dated 27.01.2016, convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 306 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years together with fine of Rs.2,000/- failing which to undergo two rigorous imprisonment.
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
3.1. The case of the Prosecution is that the deceased Mehala after completing her schooling, was waiting for her XII Standard result. During the school holidays, she had gone to Malaichandhu Village to visit her grandmother, who had undergone a surgery in her eye. The deceased stayed in her grandmother's house for about two weeks. During such stay, she met the Accused and they become friendly. In the course of their interaction, they came to know that the Accused is none other than her cousin. After two weeks the deceased returned to Dharmapuri Town and even thereafter, the Appellant used to contact her and interacted with her in the mobile phone. During such conversation, the Appellant-Accused expressed that he is in love with her. The deceased did not agree with the same and stated that the Accused is her brother and she is her sister by relationship. She also stated that as they are in a prohibited relationship, they cannot marry. Notwithstanding the same, the Appellant continued to contact her on mobile phone. Unable to bear the same, the deceased informed it to her parents. Subsequently, the Appellant is alleged to have gone to the residence of the deceased, met her family members and requested them to give the deceased in marriage to him. Even at that time, the deceased protested by stating that he is her elder brother and not in a marriageable relationship. On 01.07.2010, when the deceased had gone to a shop near Dharmapuri Co-optex to recharge her mobile phone, the Accused came there and reiterated his demand to marry him. The Accused also stated that if she raise any protest, with the help of his friends he will forcibly take her and marry her. Enraged by such a statement, the deceased rushed to her house, poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. Hearing her cries, her cousin Suresh and neighbour took the injured to Government Medical College Hospital.
3.2. P.W-10-Dr.Gnanasekaran, the Duty Doctor attended the injured by 11.50 p.m., in the burns ward. He issued Accident Register under Ex.P-5 stating that the victim suffered 60 to 80% burns. On hearing about the news of the fire accident, the parents of the deceased viz., P.W-1-Krishnan and P.W-2- Sala rushed to the Hospital. From the Hospital intimation was given to the Dharmapuri Town Police Station through the Head Constable in the outpost in the Medical College Hospital. P.W-11 on receipt of intimation went to the ward on 02.07.2010 by around 7 pm., and recorded the oral statement of the injured Mehala and submitted the same to the Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Town Police Station. P.W-9-Perumal, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Dharmapuri Town Police Station registered the First Information Report in Cr. No. 1028 of 2010 based on the oral statement of the deceased, which was reduced in to writing by P.W-11. Ex.P-4 is the First Inform
Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and Anr.
Ganguly Mohana Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
M. Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
M. Arjunan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
State of Kerala and others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others
The court upheld the conviction for abetment of suicide, ruling persistent harassment by the accused instigated the victim's self-immolation, establishing mens rea required for conviction under Secti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the dying declaration and oral evidence to prove the accused's instigation and cruelty, leading to the finding of guilt for both ch....
The court emphasized that convictions under IPC Sections 306 and 498A require proof of abetment or cruelty, upheld by consistent and reliable evidence, which was lacking in this case.
Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; the prosecution must prove intentional abetment, with clear evidence linking the accused's conduct to the victim'....
A dying declaration can only serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and free from external influence; inconsistencies can undermine its reliability.
General, vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes insufficient for conviction under Sections 498A, 306 IPC without specific particulars, roles, proximate instigation with mens rea compellin....
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.