Arulvelu vs State represented by the Public Prosecutor`

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Ori) 311

2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 930
DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
Arulvelu & Another... Appellant(s)
Versus
State represented by the Public Prosecutor & Another... Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1233-1234 of 2002
Decided on 7th October, 2009.

Headnote:1. CRIMINAL TRIAL - In criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt - The accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime.
       (Para - 22)
       2. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Secs. 304-B, 498-A - Offence under - Order of acquittal by Trial Court - Reversal of judgment of acquittal and conviction by High Court - Appeal before Apex Court - Held, view taken by the Trial Court is a possible and plausible view - The judgment of the Trial Court cannot be termed as perverse - High Court ought not to have substituted the same by its own possible view - Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that if the Trial Court restored. (Paras - 45 and 46)
       3. CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE - Order of acquittal by trial Court - High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal - Appeal before Apex Court - The Appellate Court has power to review and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record - The Appellate Court would be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the trial Court is found to be perverse judgment - Interfering in a routine manner where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position. (Para - 44)
       4. ACQUITTAL - In an appeal against acquittal, unless the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal. (Para - 25)
       5. F.I.R. - The F.I.R. should mention a broad story of the prosecution and not mentioning of material and vital facts may affect the credibility of the F.I.R. (Para - 16)
       6. CRIMINAL APPEAL - Order of acquittal by Trial Court - Reversed by High Court - The appellate Court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible - The Trial Court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate Court's view is more probable - The appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the trial Court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the Trial Court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. (Para - 41)

JUDGMENT

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. — 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 12.3.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1992 and Criminal R.C. No. 691 of 1991 respectively.

2. In the instant case, the High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Periyar District in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1999 and convicted the accused persons.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated as under :

This appeal is filed by Arulvelu, A-1 and Krishnasamy, A-2 (father of A-1). Appellant Arulvelu has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC) and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and he has been further convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Appellant accused No.2 has been imposed sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 498-A of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. Before the marriage of Arulvelu with Mangayarkarasi (since deceased), an agreement was entered into to the effect that towards the consideration of the marriage, deceased's father P.W.1 would give gold ornaments of the weight of 50 sovereigns along with other articles and a car to Arulvelu.

5. The father of the deceased could give ornaments of the weight of only 30 sovereigns of gold and also could not give the car as undertaken. Instead of giving the remaining ornaments of 20 sovereigns and a car, P.W.1 in all gave only Rs.5,000/- in small instalments. This was the main cause of annoyance of Arulvelu and his family members with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that accused nos. 1 to 3 had been torturing the deceased Mangayarkarasi by demanding a car and money.

6. A baby boy was born to Arulvelu and the deceased Mangayarkarasi. Arulvelu told his wife that he would take back her along with the newly born child only if ornaments of the weight of 5 sovereigns and a cash amount of Rs.5,000/- were given to him. The father of the deceased had given ornaments of the weight of 4 sovereigns and a cash of Rs.5,000/- to the first accused. The first accused had taken back the deceased and the child only after receiving the aforementioned articles from P.W.1.

7. The first accused had demanded the balance ornament of the weight of one sovereign when the second child was born. The father of the deceased gave ornament of the weight of one sovereign.

8. The first accused had sent the deceased Mangayarkarasi many times to her father for getting money for doing business. According to the prosecution, since the car was not given to the first accused, he had beaten and tortured the deceased asking her to get the car from P.W.1. Mangayarkarasi ultimately became disgusted with her life and at 11.30 a.m. on 15.3.1989, she committed suicide by hanging herself.

9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 20 witnesses. K. Ramalingam P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. D. Latha P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. S.T.P. Muthusamy Mudaliar P.W.5 is the neighbour. Thirumathi N. Yasodha P.W.2 is the tenant of P.W.1 and P.W.3 A. Periasamy is the person who had arranged the marriage of the first accused and the deceased. V.P. Subramaniam P.W.6 is a close relative of the deceased. N.Manickam P.W.8 is a member of the Panchayat. S.A. Periasamy P.W.9 is another Sambandhi of P.W.1 who later on turned hostile.

10. The fact that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself is undisputed. The question which arises for our adjudication is whether the appellant is guilty for compelling the deceased to commit suicide. According to the prosecution she was forced to commit suicide because of consistent demands of dowry made by the first accused.

According to P.W.1 the father of the deceased, his daughter committed suicide b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(Ori) 311

2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 930DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.Arulvelu & Another... Appellant(s)VersusState represented by the Public Prosecutor & Another... Respondent(s)Criminal Appeal Nos. 1233-1234 of 2002Decided on 7th October, 2009.

2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 930
DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
Arulvelu & Another... Appellant(s)
Versus
State represented by the Public Prosecutor & Another... Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1233-1234 of 2002
Decided on 7th October, 2009.