This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.134 of 2008, dated 14.12.2009.
2.According to the prosecution, the deceased Illanchiyam and the accused were married on 31.10.2004 and at the time of marriage, the accused demanded 15 sovereign of golds and the bridge house gave 7-1/3 sovereigns of gold and also motor bike and other Seer Varisai and subsequently, the accused demanded one lakh for the purpose of going to foreign country for job and in this regard, a panchayat was held and the father of the deceased told that he could not able to mobilise the amount and subsequently, the accused harassed the deceased to commit suicide and on 24.04.2005, she set fire on herself and committed suicide. The Inspector of Police attached to Alangudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District has filed a final report against the accused by examining the witnesses.
3.In the trial court, 21 witnesses were examined and 16 Exhibits and 2 material objects were marked. When the accused http://www.judis.nic.in 3 was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was produced. The trial court convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC . Aggrieved by the judgement passed by the trial court, the appellant/accused is before this court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.The main contention raised by the appellant/ accused is that the motive for the alleged occurrence had not been properly proved by the prosecution and Ex.P9 Complaint and Ex.P10 discloses the fact that the alleged occurrence had happened due to the firing of stove accidently and Exs.P9 and Ex.P10 have been recorded on the information given by the deceased Illanchiyam when the accused was acquitted under
Section 304 (B) IPC and found guilty by the trial Court under Section 498 (A) IPC is contrary to law and the accused is entitled to acquittal under
Section 498(A) of IPC also and in this case, the material witnesses turned hostile http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and no one spoke about the alleged dowry harassment and cruelty of the accused and Ex.P7 Dying Declaration has been initially recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 25.04.2005 and in such Dying Declaration, it does not disclose any harassment and cruelty on the part of the accused and the evidence given by the brother of the deceased is highly un-sustainable, since it was contrary to his earlier statement and the evidence of PW12 and PW13, who were the co-workers of the deceased and nowhere in their evidence stated that there was cruelty or dowry harassment on the part of the appellant and the material witnesses and their evidence not supported the case of the prosecution to sustain conviction under
Section 498(A) IPC and prays that the Criminal Appeal may be allowed.
6.In this case, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was admitted. Already the trial court come to the conclusion that the deceased sustained injuries due to the burst of the stove and due to it, she died. Hence, in this case it is to be decided that whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.To prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the co-workers of the deceased were examined as PW12 and PW13. PW12 deposed that after the marriage between the accused and the deceased, one day the accused came to his company and he stated that he suspected that the deceased had illegal intimacy with him and for that, he replied that he informed the matter to his owner and afterwards, he heard that the deceased died.
8.PW13 deposed that when he was on duty in his company, at that time the accused took the deceased to his company and PW12 told him that the accused had beaten his wife then he came and questioned the accused why he had beaten the deceased and for that, the deceased replied that due to suspicion of her character, her husband subjected her to cruelty and then the accused attempted to attack him and in his presence, the accused has beaten the deceased and in the next morning, he heard that the deceased died.
9.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW12 and PW13, it reveals that prior to the death of the deceased, she was beaten by the accused due to the suspicion of the character of the deceased. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 The offence under
Section 498(A) is concerned, it is not required cruelty on any particular day or particular incident. It is necessary to prove that whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or not.
10.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer
Section 498(A) IPC, which would run thus:-
''498-A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty ...be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent three years and shall also be liable to find.
Explanation For the purpose of this Section, ''cruelty'' means (a) and conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.'' http://www.judis.nic.in 7
11.In this case, PW12 is not a relative either to the deceased or to the accused. Further, the evidence of PW12 is corroborated with the evidence of PW13. The evidence of PW12 and PW13 are believable and trust worthy. From the evidence of PW12 and PW13, it reveals that the deceased was beaten by the accused and the accused also suspected the character of the deceased. It is sufficient to establish that the husband has beaten the wife in any one of the action. Hence, as per the evidence of PW12 and PW13, it proves that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty.
12.The trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that the accused is found guilty under
Section 498(A) of IPC, which does not require any interference of this Court. However, considering the age of the accused and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposed by the trial Court for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC is excessive. Hence, the punishment imposed by the trial Court against the accused requires modification. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the appellant for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC is reduced from two years to one year.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
13.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed on the appellant is modified for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC and the appellant is directed to undergo one year RI for the said offence. In respect of fine amount, the findings of the trial court is confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the accused is set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
09.05.2019 vsd/er To,
1.The Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Pudukkottai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J vsd/er Crl.A.(MD)No.423 of 2009 09.05.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in