Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Partheeban – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 308 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 498-A and 306 IPC - [498-A, 306 IPC] - The court acquitted the appellant/A1 of the charges of abetment to suicide and cruelty under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The court found that the dying declaration (Ex.P.9) was suspicious due to the deceased's critical condition and lack of corroboration. The court also held that the alleged statement did not directly implicate the appellant/A1 and the words uttered by the accused were casual and did not reflect the requisite mens rea under Section 106 and 107 IPC. The court emphasized the need for legal evidence to establish guilt and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant/A1, leading to his acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/A1, husband of the deceased, was convicted for abetment to suicide and cruelty under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The appellant/A1 challenged the conviction, claiming innocence and disputing the authenticity of the dying declaration (Ex.P.9).
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dying declaration (Ex.P.9) suspicious due to the deceased's critical condition and lack of corroboration. The court also held that the alleged statement did not directly implicate the appellant/A1 and the words uttered by the accused were casual and did not reflect the requisite mens rea under Section 106 and 107 IPC. The court emphasized the need for legal evidence to establish guilt and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant/A1, leading to his acquittal.
Issues: Authenticity of dying declaration, Involvement of the appellant/A1 in abetment to suicide, Legal evidence to establish guilt
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for legal evidence to establish guilt and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant/A1, leading to his acquittal.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 are set aside. The appellant/A1 is acquitted of the charges and directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. to setaside judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Chennai in S.C.No.87 of 2016 dated 06.03.2021 imposing conviction and sentence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC on the appellant and direct the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the appellant tobe refunded to the appellant , by allowing the criminal appeal.)
Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.87 of 2016, dated 06.03.2021, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
2. Totally, there are two accused and the appellant herein is arrayed as A1. The fact of the case is that the appellant/A1 is the husband of the deceased Suriya and A2 is the brother of A1. The deceased and the appellant/A1 loved each other and married without knowledge of their parents on 24.02.2014 and they had 8 months female child. A1 demanded motorcycle from the deceased to get it from her parents as a motorcycle was given to his brother from his mother in law''s house and harassed the deceased by beating her and also scolded her. Due to which, on 28.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased Suriya poured kerosene on her body and set fire on her body. Thereafter, she was admitted in the KMC Hospital and died at about 17.30 hours.
3. On the complaint given by the deceased while she was taking treatment a case was registered against her for attempting to commit suicide. After completion of investigation, Final Report has been filed before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai. After committal, the case was taken on file in SC.No.87 of 2016 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai.
4. Based on the materials, the Trial Court framed charges as against the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined, 15 documents were marked, besides one material object.
5. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they neither choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents.
6. Having considered all the materials, the Trial Court acquitted the A2 from the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 is before this Court with this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 contended that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Admittedly, the accused and the deceased made love marriage and the parents of the deceased not accepted the marriage. They lived with accused family, thereafter, lived separately. The accused did not demand any two wheeler from the deceased. Due to petty quarrel, on 28.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased her self pored kerosene upon her and set fire. On seeing that the accused put water upon her and left the house. On the complaint given by the deceased while she was taking treatment a case was registered against her for attempting to commit suicide and thereafter, prosecuted against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Among all the 9 prosecution witnesses, no one is the eye-witness. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are father and mother of the deceased. P.W.3 selvam is the brother of the deceased. P,W.4 Selvi not supported the prosecutiojn case and she was treated as hostile witness. P.W.5, PW.6, P.W.7 are
The court held that mere admonishment and lack of credible evidence regarding dowry demand do not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.
The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the prosecution must provide compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving conflicting dyin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the dying declaration and oral evidence to prove the accused's instigation and cruelty, leading to the finding of guilt for both ch....
The reliability and relevance of dying declarations, the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, and the need for corroboration in the presence of inconsistencies.
The court affirmed that a dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction if it is found to be voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, even without corroboration.
Point of law : In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.1 is speaking the truth in the Court. It is not a case where P.W.1 was declared hostile having regard to his version....
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
