Crl.A.No.375 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 16.03.2020

PRONOUNCED ON : 09.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

Crl.A.No.375 of 2014

K.Ramachandran

...

Appellant/A1

Vs.

State rep.by:

Inspector of Police

Guduvancherry Police Station,

Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.589 of 2008

...

Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the

Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in

S.C.No.176 of 2009 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chengelpet,

Kancheepuram District.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Gopinath

Senior Counsel

for M/s.L.Mahendran

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Ravichandran (Crl.side)

Government Advocate

1/17

http://www.judis.nic.in

Crl.A.No.375 of 2014

JUDGMENT

The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet at Kancheepuram

District, convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 304(B)

IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and

directed that the sentences imposed on him shall run concurrently and

acquitted A2 and A3 of the offences put forth against them under Sections

498(A) and 304(B) and impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on

him, the appellant/A1 has preferred the present criminal appeal.

2. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the accused A1 to

A3, on 14.12.2008 and prior to the same, had been demanding and harassing

the deceased Sasikala to bring Rs.50,000/- for purchasing motor cycle and

consequently, Sasikala had committed suicide on 14.12.2008 by pouring

kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze and on account of the dowry

harassment caused by the accused A1 to A3 as aforestated Sasikala died by

committing suicide within seven years of her marriage and the first accused

also had compelled/forced the deceased Sasikala to have sexual intercourse

with him and accordingly also had committed rape on her when she was alone

2/17

http://www.judis.nic.in

Crl.A.No.375 of 2014

in the house and thus, A1 to A3 had been charged under Sections 498(A) IPC

& 304(B) IPC and A1 had been also charged under Section 376 IPC.

3. To sustain the prosecution charges, PWs 1 to 14 were examined,

Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. Material Objects 1 and 2 were marked. On the

conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. qua the incriminating evidence and the accused had

denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the

offences put forth against them and further, it is stated that the deceased

Sasikala was mentally affected and she had herself committed suicide on

account of her mental illness and there has been no illtreatment and

harassment of the deceasedon the part of the accused by demanding dowry.

4. On the side of the accused no oral and documentary evidence has

been adduced and no material object has been marked.

5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of all the materials placed on

record, has finally concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to

establish that A1 has committed the offence of rape under section 376 IPC

levied against him. Furthermore, also concluded that the prosecution has

3/17

http://www.judis.nic.in

Crl.A.No.375 of 2014

miserably failed to establish that the accused A2 and A3 had committed

cruelty and ill treatment to the deceased Sasikala by demanding dowry and

Sasikala had not committed suicide due to dowry harassment on the part of A2

and A3 and accordingly, the trial Court had acquitted them of the offences

levelled against them. However, proceeded to convict and sentence the

appellant/A1 for the offences under sections 498(A) and 304(B) as aforestated.

6. The first accused is the Father in law of the deceased Sasikala. For

sustaining the convictio