Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.Anand Venkatesh, P.Dhanabal, JJ.
Singarasu - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police G.Vilakku Police Station - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No.941 of 2023
Decided On : 17-03-2026
JUDGMENT :
P.DHANABAL, J.
Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the Mahila Fast Track Court, Theni, in S.C.No.58 of 2007 dated 07.07.2023 the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2..The trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 for the offence under Sections498(A), 304(B), 306 r/w 109 of IPC and convicted the appellant/A1as follows:
| Penal Provisions | Sentence of Imprisonment | Fine Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 498(A) of IPC | 2 years simple imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- I/d to undergo one month simple imprisonment |
| 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act | 2 years simple imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- I/d to undergo one month simple imprisonment |
| 304(B) of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- I/d to undergo one month simple imprisonment |
Thereafter, the deceased, on the same day, at about 6.45 am, consumed Oleander seeds of the poisonous substance and thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, where she died at 10.50 am. Thereafter, the P.W.1, has lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 before the respondent police and the respondent Police/P.W.22 registered an FIR/Ex.P.8 in Crime No.54 of 2006, for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the P.W.27/investigation officer had taken up the case for the investigation.3.1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W.8 conducted an enquiry on the body of the deceased and P.W.27 on 22.04.2006 at about 07.00 a.m. went to the place of the occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer/Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch/Ex.P12 in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, altered the Sections into 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC. Thereafter, he examined the witnesses on 24.04.2006 and recorded the statement on the same day at about 09.00 a.m, and he also recovered the note book of the deceased/Ex.P.14 in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, on 25.04.2006 he arrested A1 to A4 and in the presence of the Village Assistant/P.W.23 namely, Seenivasagam, and thereafter, the appellant voluntarily gave a confession statement and the said confession statement/Ex.P.9 was recorded. Thereafter, he obtained Ex.P.15/ sucide note from the P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased and thereafter, Ex.P.14 an Ex.P.15 were sent for expert opinion and also he sent the seized materials M.O.1 and M.O.2 for chemical analysis and thereafter, he filed a final report as against A1 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and as against A2 to A4 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 of IPC r/w 109 of IPC.
3.2. On appearance of the accused, and compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it was made over to the Mahila Fast Track Court, Theni,
A marriage between minors rendered void ab initio precludes prosecution under IPC provisions regarding dowry and cruelty, necessitating strict adherence to procedural requirements in charge framing.
Prosecution must clearly establish essential ingredients of dowry-related offences; lack of consistent evidence led to acquittal.
The court established that minor domestic quarrels do not constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Sections 498(A) and 304(B), emphasizing the necessity for credible evidence of dowry ....
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
Point of Law : For offence Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial evidence to prove charges of dowry harassment, cruelty, and abetment to suicide. The court emphasized the need for ....
The absence of evidence proving demand of dowry or cruelty negates conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC; presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act requires substantiation of foundatio....
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
