Crl.A.No.404 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on :12.09.2022

Pronounced on

:......09.2022

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.A.No.404 of 2014

1.G.Suresh Kumar

2.Devayani

.. Appellants/Accused 1 and 2

/versus/

The State of Tamil Nadu

Represented by the Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Perur.

(Crime No.36 of 2010)

.. Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the

Criminal Procedure Code to allow the appeal setting aside the judgment

dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge Magalir

Neethimandram,(Mahila Court), Coimbatore in S.C.No.102 of 2011 and

acquitting the appellants/accused in the above case.

Page No.1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.404 of 2014

For Appellants

:Mr.Chandran for

Mr.S.Sithirai Anandan

For Respondent

:Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

-----

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are son and mother. This appeal has been filed against

the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 498 A IPC passed by

the learned Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandaran(Maila Court),

Coimbatore made in S.C.No.102 of 2011 dated 09.07.2014.

2.

The case of the prosecution in brief:

Thiru.Sureshkumar (first appellant) is the son of Tmt.Devayani

(second appellant). The marriage of the first appellant with one Sindhu was

solemnised on 29/11/2009 at Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, 25

sovereigns of gold jewels to Sindhu and 4 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels to the

first appellant was given as dowry by the father of Sindhu, Krishnan (PW-

1). Sindhu was ill treated by her husband and mother-in-law demanding

Page No.2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.404 of 2014

more dowry. Beginning of May 2010, Sindhu came to her maternal home for

cleberating Chithirai Kani function and stayed for 10 days between

1/05/2010 and 10/05/2010. She informed her father that her husband and

mother-in-law (appellants herein) demanding cot, bureau and gold ring. She

went back to the matrimonial home and attending her job at Sungam. On

20/05/2010 morning. she came to her maternal home and told her father that

she was driven out from the home by her husband and mother-in-law for not

bringing cot, bureau and golden ring as demanded and told her to come

home only with the articles demanded. PW-1 pacified her and told her to go

to job and return to his home. Sindhu did not return home that night. PW-1

and his sons went to the accused house and enquired about Sindhu. When

they came to know that she did not go to her matrimonial home, they started

searching her. The first accused gave a complaint to the police Ex.D-3 about

missing of his wife Sindhu. On the next day, the body of Sindhu was found

on the Railway track between Madukkarai and Podanur. Complaint by PW-

1 alleging Sindu committed suicide unbearable of cruelty and dowry demand

was registered and taken up for investigation. The RDO enquiry was

Page No.3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.404 of 2014

conducted and it was revealed that the matrimonial relationship between the

first appellant and the deceased was not well. They used to be frequent

quarrel and probability of cruelty not ruled out. The investigation had further

revealed that the these petitioners have treated the deceased Sindhu with

cruelty and were demanding additional dowry. Since Sindhu's father was not

able to meet out the demand, Sindhu was driven out from the matrimonial

home. Hence, unbearable of the cruelty, Sindhu had committed suicide.

3.

Final Report in those lines was filed and the trial Court on

committal had framed charges under Sections 498A, 304(B) IPC and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and tried them. To prove these

charges, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Marked 13 exhibits

and 4 Material Objects. In defence, the accused marked 3 exhibits.

4.