BAIL SLIP

The

Appellant/Accused Namely,

Arusami M/Age 35 years

S/o.Palaniyappan was directed to be released on bail vide in

Crl.MP.No.14537/2019 in Crl.A.No.344 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.06.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl. A. No. 344 of 2019

Arusami M/Age 35 years

...Appellant/Sole Accused

Versus

State Rep. by

Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Thevoor Police Station,

Salem District.

(*Crime No.95/2013)

(Amended as per order in Crl.MP.No.986/2020

Crl.No.344 of 2019 dated 28.01.2020)

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C to

set aside the Judgement dated 27.40.2019 passed in S.C.No.461 of

2016 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahilar

Needimandram, Salem.

For Appellant

: Mr.T.Muruganantham

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

JUDGMENT

On 04.06.2013, when P.W.8/Thilagavathy/Sub-Inspector of

Police, was on duty in Thevoor Police Station, P.W.1/Kuppuswamy

appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that

five years before the said occurrence, he arranged the marriage

of his daughter/Vennila to the Appellant/accused and she was

nine months pregnant. One month before the incident the

Appellant/accused was not permitting the deceased/victim to go

over to her parent's house or any relatives' house. While so on

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

that day i.e., 04.06.2013 at about 1'o clock, he was informed

by his relative that his daughter committed suicide by hanging.

Therefore, he lodged the complaint to take action in respect of

the unnatural death of his daughter.

2.Based on the complaint, initially, the First Information

Report was registered as per the provisions under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C, in Crime No.95 of 2013. Subsequently, on receipt of

Ex.P-8/report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the case was

altered into one under Section 498 A and 306 of IPC. The

investigation was completed by P.W.10/Investigation Officer and

he laid a charge sheet proposing the appellant guilty of the

said offenses. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sangagiri,

took up the case in P.R.C. No.9 of 2014 and upon the appearance

of the accused, furnished the copies of documents as per Section

207 of Cr.P.C, and thereafter, committed the case to the Learned

District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The learned Sessions Judge,

thereupon, took the case on file in S.C.No.461 of 2016.

Subsequently, it was made over to the Trial Court namely Mahila

Court, Salem. Upon considering the materials on records, the

Trial Court framed charges for the offenses under Section 498 A

and 306 of IPC. The Appellant/accused denied the charges and

stood for trial.

3.The prosecution examined Kuppuswamy, who is the first

informant and father of the deceased/Vennila as P.W.1; The

Village Administrative Officer, who was the witness to the

confession statement as P.W.2; One Palaniammal, the mother of

the victim as P.W.3; One Seerangan, brother of the victim as

P.W.4; One Thulasimani, Sister of the victim as P.W.5; One

Palanisamy, relative of P.W.1 as P.W.6 and One Doctor/Sangeetha,

who conducted the Post-Mortem as P.W.7; One Thilagavathy, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information

Report as P.W.8; One Rathinasamy, the RDO, who conducted inquiry

as P.W.9 and One Ramasamy the Investigation Officer as P.W.10.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint lodged by

P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P-1; Seizure mahazar as Ex.P-2;

Observation mahazar as Ex.P-3; Post-mortem was marked as Ex.P-4;

the chemical analysis report is Ex.P-5; Final opinion of the

Doctor is Ex.P-6; the First Information Report is Ex.P-7; the

RDO report is Ex.P-8; Rough sketch is Ex.P-9; Form 91 as Ex.P-

10; the Alteration Report is Ex.P-11; and the req