This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, made in S.C.No.107 of 2003, dated 06.11.2009.
2.According to the prosecution, the deceased Ambika daughter of PW1 Manian and PW4/Parameswari was married to A1 and she lived at Manakudi village along with A1 and A2 and at the instigation of A2 to A5, A1 harassed the deceased Ambika to get dowry from her and he went to the extent of demanding Rs.10,000/- for purchasing land from PW1 and PW4 and they also ill-treated the deceased about Sridhana brought by her and due to which, on 08.02.2002, the Ambika died due to burn injuries sustained. The Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused examining the witnesses
3.In the trial court, 9 witnesses were examined and 19 Exhibits and 10 material objects were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was produced. The trial court convicted http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the A1 for the offence under
Section 498(A) and 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further period of 3 months for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC and also sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year RI for the offence under
Section 306 IPC and that A5 is convicted for the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 3 months RI. Aggrieved by the judgement passed by the trial court, the appellants/A1 and A5 are before this court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.The main contention raised on the side of the appellants/A1 and A5 is that there is no evidence for abatement of suicide and cruelty from the side of the accused and further the written complaint does not contain any demand of dowry and the entire story of the prosecution is a concocted one and it has to be brushed aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6.PW1 and PW4 are the parents of the deceased. In this case, PW1 gave Ex.P1 Complaint. PW1 in his complaint stated that after the marriage between A1 and the deceased, the sister of A1 namely Meenakshi and her husband frequently came to the house of A1 and scolded the deceased and further, the wife of the maternal uncle of A1 also came to the house of A1 and scolded his daughter and on 08.02.2002 at 1.00 p.m, he heard that his daughter died due to setting by fire and he went and saw that the body of his daughter was found on the bank of the river and then, he gave this complaint.
7.PW1 during his evidence stated that at that time of marriage between the deceased and A1, he gave 11 sovereign of jewels for his daughter and 3 sovereign of jewels to A1 at the time of marriage and further gave TVS 50 two wheeler to A1. After the marriage, A1 and all the accused demanded dowry from his daughter and several times his daughter came to his house and he gave some amount, since it is not possible for him to give the entire amount demanded by the accused and when the deceased went to the matrimonial home without the actual amount demanded by all the accused, then they scolded his daughter and subjected her to http://www.judis.nic.in 5 cruelty and due to the cruelty, his daughter wrote two letters to her brother Narasiman stating the cruelty done by the accused and further, he heard that the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire and throw the body on the bank of the river.
8.PW4 deposed that at that time of marriage between the deceased and A1, they gave 11 sovereign of jewels for her daughter and 3 sovereign of jewels to A1 and gave TVS 50 two wheeler to A1. After marriage, A1 and all the accused demanded dowry and several times her daughter came to her house and they gave some amount and it is not possible for them to give the entire amount as demanded by the accused and when the deceased went to the matrimonial home without the actual amount demanded by all the accused, then they scolded her daughter and subjected to her cruelty and due to the cruelty, her daughter wrote two letters to her brother Narasiman stating the cruelty done by the accused and further, she heard that the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire and throw the body on the bank of the river. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of PW4.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9.The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased was examined as PW3. PW3 stated that on 09.02.2002 at 3.00 pm, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW3 stated that he has not found any external injuries and he found the following internal injuries:-.
Jaws clenched. On opening abdomen.
Stomach distended and contain partially digested food. Esophagos congested. Liver, Spleen, Omentum, Kidneys are congested with food material, Bladder empty. On open uterus – Fetus male baby gestations age about 20 weeks present, which was preserved on open thorax, Larynx, trachea show carbon soot, mucasa, membrance congested. Lungs congested. Hyoid bone intact and preserved. On opening skull membrance brain congested. No other significant findings. Spinal card intact. Heart chambers filled with blood, membarance, kidney, sample of liver are preserved and sent for chemical analysis. PW3 stated that he concluded the post-mortem at 4.20 p.m. and he stated that the cause of death was due to shock and to the burn injuries.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
10.PW3 stated that the deceased died due to burn injuries. PW1 and PW4 deposed that only the accused have murdered their daughter and poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and then throw the body of the daughter on the bank of the river. But PW3 stated during his cross examination that when a person was set fire during the life time, then only the carbon dust available in the lungs. In this case also, PW3 found carbon dust in the lungs of the deceased. Hence, it reveals that the deceased was set fire during her life time. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 stating that after murdering their daughter, the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and throw the body of their daughter on the bank of the river is not at all acceptable. Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to prove that whether the deceased herself set fire or the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire.
11.It is admitted on the side of the appellants/Accused that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was in her matrimonial home. Since the deceased was in the custody of her husband, it is the bounden duty of the accused to prove that how the deceased was found dead. In this case, there was no proper explanation on http://www.judis.nic.in 8 behalf of the accused, how the deceased was found dead since she was in their custody. In this case, to prove the cruelty by the accused, Ex.P2 letters were produced on the side of the prosecution.
12.On perusal of Ex.P2, it is stated as follows:-
'cg;Gkh Mf;fp jdpahf jpd;Nwd; vd;W nrhy;fpwhh;fs;. vdf;F mg;Ngh NrhW jpz;gjw;F xU khjphp ,Ue;jJ. ehd; rpd;d ghf;nfl; jhd;. 50 fpuhk; jhd; ,Uf;Fk;. mij nra;J jpd;Nwd;. mij Ngha;
rPl;il ghh;j;J Gl;L vd;dk;kh cdf;F fzf;F te;J rpj;jpiu tUfpwJ. 9 khrk; vd;whh;fs;. ey;yh mTq;f Ngrpdhh;fs;. rpj;jpiuapy; jhd; Foe;ij gpwf;f NghfpwJ vd;whh;fs;.” 'Gjd; fpoik M];gj;jphpf;F NghfNtz;Lk;. Nghd; gd;dpfpNwd;. khyjp mk;kh Nfl;L 7 khrj;jpy; miyj;J Nghf Vw;ghL nra;aTk;. vdf;F gakhf ,Uf;fpwJ.”
13.It is not denied on the side of the accused that Ex.P2 letters were not written by the deceased. Further, during the time of Ex.P2 letters, the deceased was in the matrimonial home, which was not denied on the side of the accused.
14.On perusal of Ex.P2 letters, it is stated that the harassment made to the deceased by all other accused was intimated to A1. But no steps were taken by A1 to avoid such cruel words respectively levelled by A5 and others upon his wife. Under these circumstances, considering the period of marriage of A1 and the deceased and the criminal words levelled upon by A5 and others during her period of death, it can be presumed that the inaction of A1 in taking immediate steps to avoid the cruel words of http://www.judis.nic.in 10 the A5 and others levelled upon his wife would fall under offence of harassing cruelty and abatement of suicide of the deceased punishable under
Sections 498(A) and
306 of IPC.
15.Further, for the cruel words levelled by A5 upon the deceased, his behaviour in this regard would fall under the offence of causing cruelty upon the deceased punishable under
Section 498(A) IPC. On careful perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and documents, the trial Court came to the conclusion that A1 is found guilty under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC and A5 found guilty under
Section 498(A) IPC. Hence this court is of the considered view that there is no necessity to interfere in the findings of the trial Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the family circumstances of the appellants, the punishment imposed on the appellants requires modification. Hence, it is held that the punishment imposed by the trial Court as against A1 for the an offence under
Section 306 IPC is reduced from 5 years to 2 years.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
16.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed on the first appellant/A1 alone is modified for the offence under
Section 306 IPC and the first appellant/A1 is directed to undergo two years RI for the said offence. In other aspects, the findings of the trial court is confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the appellants/A1 and A5 is set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
09.05.2019 vsd/er To
1.The Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J.
vsd/er Crl.A(MD)No.385 of 2009 09.05.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in