Mahila court conviction order pp arthi baskar. Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L., Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai Dated, Wednesday, the 16th day

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Wednesday, the 16th dayl of March, 2022
Complainant The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Guindy Range,
J3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai – 600 032.
(Crime No.1459/2015)
Name of the Accused A1.Madhankumar, M/A.25/2015, S/o.Sadagopan
A2. Sadagopan, M/A.65/2015, S/o. Kuppusamy
A3. Senthamarai, F/A.45/2015,
W/o. Sadagopan
Offence charges Section 498A and 306 IPC
2052- jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 2k; ehs; g[jd;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No.340/2016
CNR NO. TNCH01-009803-2016)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.92/2016 in (Crime No.1459/2015, J3- Guindy Police Station) on the file of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Section 306 IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
J.F.No. 61 -Page
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result,
i the accused A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge under Section 498A IPC;
ii the accused-A1 is found guilty for the charge under Section 306 IPC, and
iii the accused A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 306 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charge under Section 306 IPC.
Sentence Accordingly, the accused are convicted and sentences as below;
i the accused-A1 is convicted under Section 498A and 306 IPC and accordingly sentence to undergo THREE YEARS RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine of ₹.5000/-, in default to undergo SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE MONTHS

under Section 498A IPC; and further the accused-A1 is sentence to undergo TEN
YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

and to pay a Fine of ₹.10000/-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR
THREE MONTHS under Section 306 IPC;
ii the accused A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 498A IPC and accordingly sentence to undergo THREE YEARS SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT each and to pay a Fine of ₹.5000/- each, in default to undergo
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE

MONTHS each under Section 498A IPC;
iii the period already undergone by the accused-A1 from 02.10.2015 to 07.12.2015 shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.; The accused A2 and A3 were released on anticipatory bail;
iv both the sentence imposed on the accused-A1 shall run concurrently; v Total fine .25,000/-.₹
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The case property M.O.1/Tuppattah is order to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time or if appeal is filed, after the disposal of appeal. M.O.2/Diary is ordered to be kept with the records.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or
357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of .15,000/- paid₹ by the accused-A1, a sum of .12,000/- and out₹ of the fine of .5000/- each paid by accused A2₹ and A3, a sum of .4000/- each is ordered to be₹ paid as compensation to P.W.1-Tmt.Shanthi under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. (Total ₹.20,000/-). The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time. If appeal is filed, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to
P.W.1/Tmt.Shanthi (mother of the deceased), after due enquiry, out of the Victim
Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.

The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.

Description of the accused
Seri al
No. Name Father’s
Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Madhankumar Sadagopan Hindu Photographer 19A, 7th 1st Cross
Street,
Dhanalakshmi
Nagar, Earikarai, Maduravoil,
Chennai – 95. 25/2015
2. Sadagopan Kuppusamy Hindu Coolie 19A, 7th 1st Cross
Street,
Dhanalakshmi
Nagar, Earikarai, Maduravoil,
Chennai – 95. 65/2015
3. Senthamarai Sadagopan Hindu House wife 19A, 7th 1st Cross
Street,
Dhanalakshmi
Nagar, Earikarai, Maduravoil,
Chennai – 95. 45/2015

Occurrence 04.05.2015
Complaint-Final Report 22.09.2016
Date of
Apprehension or appearance A1 – 02.10.2015
A2 – 08.09.2016 (Anticipatory Bail)
A3 – 12.09.2016 (Anticipatory Bail)
Released on bail A1 – 07.12.2015 (As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court in Crl.O.P. No.28136/2015 dated 27.11.2015).
A2 – 08.09.2016
A3 – 12.09.2016
(As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P. No.29285/2015 dated 16.12.2015 and ).
Commitment 30.09.2016
Commencement of Trial 25.11.2016
Close of trial 02.03.2022
Sentence or Order 16.03.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 16.03.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused M/s. P.Ponnusamy and D.Gowri
Sd/T.H.Mohammed Farooq Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
Judicial Form No. 61
(Cr.R.P 106)
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR EETHIMANDRAM CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai-03
Dated, Wednesday, the 16th day of March, 2022
2052- jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 2k; ehs; g[jd;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No.340/2016
CNR NO. TNCH01-009803-2016)
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Guindy Range,
J3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai – 600 032.
(Crime No.1459/2015) … Complainant
-Vs. –
A1.Madankumar, M/A.25/2015, S/o.Sadagopan,
19A, 7th 1st Cross Street,
Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Earikarai, Maduravoil, Chennai – 95.
A2. Sadagopan, M/A.65/2015, S/o. Kuppusamy,
19A, 7th 1st Cross Street,
Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Earikarai, Maduravoil, Chennai – 95.
….2.

A3. Senthamarai, F/A.45/2015, W/o. Sadagopan,
19A, 7th 1st Cross Street,
Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Earikarai,
Maduravoil, Chennai – 95. … Accused
This Sessions case is taken on file on 22.10.2016 and came up on
02.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of M/s.P.Ponnusamy and D.Gowri, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police J3 Guindy Range, has laid a final report before the Committal Court of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 16.03.2022 alleging that the accused-A1 to A3 have committed an offence punishable U/s.306 Indian Penal Code(IPC).
2. It is alleged that the accused-A1 is the husband of the deceased
Tmt.Selviyammal and the accused-A2 and A3 are her Father-in-law and
Mother-in-law respectively. The accused-A1 and deceased were married 2-½
….3.
years prior to her death. After marriage the deceased was living at the residence of the accused. The accused-A1 use to drink and does not go to work and harass the deceased. Further, the accused-A2 and accused-A3 insulted the deceased by speaking insulting words and harassed her. Due to such dispute the deceased along with the accused-A1 (husband) came and resided at her mother’s place at
No.1/4 Gangaiamman Kovil Street, Kamarajapuram, Velachery, Chennai-42. While staying there the accused-A1 didn’t go to work and stayed at home and continued to harass the deceased. So, on 04.05.2015 at about 8.30 a.m. the deceased due to the cruelty and harassment caused by the accused got heartbroken and committed suicide by hanging herself at her mother’s residence and died. Hence the charge.
3. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the offence by the Committal Court and on appearance of the accused, the copies of all documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, vide Order dated 30.09.2016 in
P.R.C.No.92/2016 has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and bound over the accused to appear before
….4.
the Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
4. Appearance of accused and framing of charges: Upon appearance of the accused and their Counsel before this Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charges were framed under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, they pleaded not guilty. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
5. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 22 witnesses cited, 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.25 and Material Objects M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
6. The facts set-out through the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution can be deduced as follows:-
….5.
6.1. P.W.1/Tmt. Shanthi is the mother of the deceased Tmt.
Selviyammal. She resides at the place of occurrence situated at No.
1/4 Gangaiamman Kovil Street, Kamarajapuram, Velachery, Chennai-42. She has identify the accused-A1 as the husband of the deceased Tmt.Selviyammal and the accused-A2 and accused-A3 as the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. She has further deposed that the deceased has studied B.Com.
6.2. The accused-A2 and accused-A3 approached P.W.1 to give herdaughter in marriage to the accused-A1. At that time accused-A1 working as a studio designer. So, she agreed for marriage between the deceased and accused-A1. P.W.1 gave 40 sovereign gold ornaments and other house hold articles at the time of marriage. She also gave cash for purchasing two-wheeler on installment
basis.
6.3. Further P.W.1 has stated that after marriage the deceased resided along with the accused jointly. The deceased didn’t conceived a child. At that time her family life was in problem, there was financial crises. So, the accused-A2 and accused-A3 asked the deceased to go out of the house and told that they she should go
separately. Hence, P.W.1 leased out her house for 2 lakhs and₹
….6.
set up a separate residence for the deceased and accused-A1 to live in the same street. Thereafter the accused-A1 demanded money to set-up a studio and was causing trouble. After selling Jewels of the deceased, P.W.1 arranged a separate studio. The accused-A1 became addicted to alcohol. He did not look after the studio business. When he was questioned about it, he used to say that he would look after the business at his will. Later, the accused-A3 said that separate residence is not suitable for them and took the deceased and the accused-A1 back to her house.
6.4. While the deceased was living in her in-laws house, P.W.1 (motherof the deceased) use to daily called her daughter (deceased) and ask her about her well being. The deceased used to complaint that there is no money and she is not even given proper food. So, several time P.W.1 use to purchase and give rice and other provisions.
6.5. P.W.1 would further testify that the accused-A2 (father-in-law) useto called the deceased like his wife. Further, the deceased informed it to her brother-in-law (bother of the accused-A1), who came and scolded the accused-A2.
6.6. Further, the trauma continued and the accused-A1 used to cause trouble. Therefore, the deceased came and stayed at house of the
….7.
her mother (P.W.1) for couple of days. When, the deceased called the accused-A1 and ask whether she can come back home, the accused-A1 said that if she comes, his mother would cause trouble. However, P.W.1 and the deceased went to the house of the accused. They found the accused-A1 drunk and sleeping. When the deceased woke him up, he came to beat her. Seeing them the accused-A3 asked why they have come and slapped the deceased on her cheek. P.W.1 got angry and beat the accused-A3. Enraged by it, the accused-A3, saying how dare she could come to her house and beat her, the accused-A3 beat P.W.1 on her head with hand and caused injuries and also insulted them by speaking bad of them and the accused asked them to get out of the house.
6.7. P.W.1 having sustained bleeding injuries, the deceased took her to the Mathuravoyal Police Station. At about 11.00 A.M. the accusedA2 and accused-A3 came to the Police Station and gave a complaint that P.W.1 assaulted the accused-A1. When the Police Inspector went to the house of the accused and enquired, he found that the accused-A1 has not sustained any injuries. However, he advised to conciliate and compromise the matter between them and advised the deceased to join and live with the accused-A1. When
….8.
the Police Inspector ask accused-A1, whether he is going to his mother’s house or to his in-laws house, the accused-A1 told that P.W.1 is like his mother and that he is willing to go to her house and went with P.W.1 to her house.
6.8. Even after that, the accused-A1 while residing at house of P.W.1, use to cause trouble. He didn’t go to work. Meanwhile, the deceased got pregnant. When they asked the accused-A1 to go for work, he went to a studio for work.
6.9. On the date of occurrence on 4th May, P.W.1 had gone to work. When she called her daughter, she did not respond. So, P.W.1 returned home and saw a crowd in her street. She went inside her house and found her daughter (deceased) lying down. When she asked the accused-A1 as to what happened, he said that her daughter fainted and fell down. When she asked the accused-A1 to take her daughter to hospital, he refused. So, she slapped him and took her daughter to the hospital.
6.10. P.W.5/ Tmt.Dr Iswarya Satheesh was working as Medical Officer at Xcellent Care Super Speciality Hospital, Velacherry. On 04.05.2015 at around 9.20 a.m., while she was on duty, the deceased Tmt.Selviammal was brought by her mother (P.W.1) with
….9.
the history of hanging at her residence. When, P.W.5 examined the deceased, she found there was ligature mark on the neck and the deceased was unconscious, pupils dilated and not reacting to light and fixed. There was no sign of life. So, she declared the deceased as brought dead and sent intimation to the Police and issued the
Medico-legal Certificate in Ex-P.10.
6.11. After the deceased was declared dead by hanging, as the roof in herhouse was not that height for hanging, P.W.1 raised suspicion in the death of her daughter and lodged a Complaint in Ex-P.1. Further, she gave a statement to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, marked as Ex-P.7.
6.12. P.W.6/Tr.Venugopal, then Sub-Inspector of Police at J-3 Guindy Police Station, receive the Complaint/Ex-P1 given by P.W.1 and registered the case Crime No.1459/2015 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. Ex-P.11 is the printed First Information Report (FIR). As the deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage, P.W.6 submitted the complaint and FIR to the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Guindy Range for Investigation. Further, he assisted the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in conducting the inquest and postmortem.
….10.
6.13. P.W.8/Tr.Nandakumar, who was then working as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Guindy Range, receive the complaint and FIR from P.W.6 (S.I. of Police) and took up the case for Investigation. He give requisition to the Sub Divisional
Magistrate Cum Personal Assistant to the District Collector,
Chennai, (hereinafter referred as RDO), for conducting Inquest. Ex-P.14 is the requisition given by him.
6.14. Then, P.W.8/ACP proceeded to Guindy Xcellent Hospital were the body of the deceased was kept. He forward the body to Royapettah
Government Hospital through Police, constable Tr. Savarimuthu. Dr.Aananth, has received the body and recorded the AccidentRegister/Ex-P.19 on 04.05.2015 at Royapattah Government
Hospital. P.W.8/ACP, then went to the place of occurrence at No.1/4 Gangaiamman Kovil Street, Kamarajapuram, Velachery and prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex-P.8 and Rough sketch/Ex-P.15 in the presence of the witnesses P.W.4
Tr.Gunasekaran and Tr.Vijay. Further he seized a Thuppata (M.O.1), used by the deceased for hanging and a Diary (M.O.2), containing the suicide note written by the deceased, which was kept
….11.
above the fridge, in the presence of same witnesses, under the cover of the Seizure Mahazar/Ex-P.9.
6.15. P.W.4/Tr. Gunasekaran has supported and collaborated the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the preparation of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar.
6.16. In M.O.2/Diary on the pages bearing the dates from 02.09.2015 to 07.09.2015, the deceased has written down suicide note stating the reasons for taking the decision to end her life. P.W.1 (mother of the deceased) has identified the writings found in M.O.2 as that of the deceased, which is marked as/ Ex-P.2, which read as below;
” இறைவா எனக்கு ஏன் இப்படி ஒரு வாழ்க்றைகய குடுத்த , எனன் ஏன் பபாக்க வச்ச, நா சினன்துல இருந்து சாந்ததாஷமா இருந்ததத இலல். சினன்துல இருந்து நா பட்ட கஷ்டம் எலல் ாதம தபாதாதுன்னு
கல்யாணம்னு ஒனன் பண்ணி ஏன் வாழ்க்றைகய சூனியம்
மாக்கிட்டிதய இப்ப உனக்கு சந்ததாஷமா எலல்ாரும் தனக்கு வர புருஷம் நல்லவனாகவும் , சாம்பாதிக்கிவனாவும், அன்பானவனாவும்,
பாசமாவனாவும், அக்கறையானவனாவும், யாராவது தா பபாண்டாட்டிய தப்பா தபசினா அத தட்டி தகக்கி புருஷனாவும், தா பபாண்டாட்டிய யாராவது றைகய புடிச்சு இழுத்து தப்பா தபசினா அந்த
….12.
வீட்டு வாசபடிய கூட மிதிக்காத புருஷனாவும் இருக்கனும்னு தாதன எல்லா பபாண்ணுங்களும் ஆசப்படுவாங்க ஆனா எனக்கு எனன் புாிஞ்சுக்காத, பாசதம இலல்ாத, சம்பாதிக்காத பகட்ட பழக்கம் இருக்கிவரா எனக்கு கல்யாணம் பனன்ிவச்சு ஏன் வாழ்க்றைகய நாசம் பன்னிட்டிதய இறை வா எலல் ா பகட்ட பழக்கமும் இருநத் ாலும்,
பாசதம இலல்னாலும், அக்கறைதய இலல்னாலும்,
சம்பாதிக்கலனாலும் இது எல்லா ஒரு நாள் சாி ஆய்டும் அப்படின்னு 2
1/2 வருஷமா பபாறுதது் வாழ்நது்ட்டு இருக்க. ஆனா இது எல்லாத்றைதயும் விட அவதராட அப்பா, அம்மா, தங்கச்சி, சிதத்ி எல்லாரும் தசா்ந்து என்ன அசிங்கமான வாா்த்றைதல தபசி, எனன் தகவலபடுத்தி, ஏன் கழுத்த புடிச்சி பவளியில தள்ளுனாங்க
அவங்களுக்காக ஏன் புருஷன் எனன் அடிச்சாரு , ஏன் தறைலயில கல்ல தூக்கி தபாட்டு பகாலபண்ணதவ வநத்ாரு ஆனா யாரும் வநது் தடுக்கவும் இலல், அவங்க தம்பி உக்காநது் சாப்டுகிட்தட எல்லாத்றைதயும் தவடிக்றைக பாத்துக்கிட்டு இருநத்ா. இதுமட்டுமா, இதுக்கு அப்பு மா நா லீசு வீட்டுக்கு தபான அங்க நா அனுபவிக்காத பகாடுறைம இல்ல , சிதத்ிரவறைத இலல் எலல்ாத்றைதயும ் பபாறுத்துகிட்டு வாழந்்த திாிநத்ி நல்லவனா மாறுவான்
நம்பிக்றைகயில நா வாழ்நத் . ஆனா திாிந்தல . மதனால அனுபவிச்ச
….13.
டாா்ச்சா் பதத்ாதுன்னு அவங்க வீட்டு ஆலுங்கலால பகாஞ்சமா கஷ்டபட்தடாம் பசாலல் முடியாத அளவுக்கு அசிங்கபட்டு , மானம ் தபாய் , கவுரம் தபாய் நா வாழநது்ட்டு இருநத் . அதுக்கு அப்புமா லீசுவீட்றைட காலி பசஞ்சிட்டு மறுபடியும் அவங்க வீட்டுக்தக தபாதன . ஆன அதுக்கு அப்பு மா நா பட்ட அசிங்கதுக்கும் அவமானத்துக்கும் அளதவ இலல் . எநத் ஒரு பபாண்னுக்குதம இநத் மாதிாி ஒரு நிறைலறைம வரதவ கூடாது . ஏன் இப்படி பசால்ன்று புாியல ஏன ் புருஷதனாட அப்பா என்ன றைகய புடிச்சி இழுதது் ஏன் கூட வந்து படுடின்னு பசான்னாரு , இது மட்டு இல்லாம தகாத வாா்த்றைதயில என்ன நடுதராட்ல தபசினாரு . இது பதத் ாதுன்னு ஏன் மாமியாா்காாியும் என்ன தகக்காத வாா்த்றைத இல்ல , சாப்பிட் அாிசி தமல்பகாண்டு எடுத்து ஒலிச்சு வச்சு எனன் கஷ்டப்படுத்தினாங்க , இது மட்டுமா அவங்க பபாண்ணு கல்யாணம் முடிஞ்ச அப்புமா எனன் தகட்ட வாா்த்றைதக்கும் ஏன் தாளி அறுத்து றைவடின்னு அறுக்க வநது் ஏன் கழுத்த புடிச்சு அடிச்சு என்றைனயும் , ஏன் அமம்ாறைவயும் இவ்வளவு பகாடுறைமகள் பன்னி இருக்காங்க நா எப்படி அந்த வீட்டுக்கு தபாகமுடியும் பசால்லு இறைவா அப்படி இந்தும் எல்லாத்றைதயும் மனசுக்குளள்தய தபாட்டு புழுங்கி , புழுங்கி பசத்துட்டு இருக்க இன்னும் எவ்வளதவா பண்ணங்க ஆன இன்னிக்கு அவதராட அப்பா ,
அம்மா , தங்கச்சி , தம்பி இவங்கதா முக்கியம் , நா , பாப்பா , இறைவா ந ீ
….14.
நமம் யாருதம முக்கியம் இலல் , எப்படி முக்கியம் அப்படி நிறைனச்சு இருந்தா குடிச்சுட்டு படயல் ி ஏன் மனச கஷ்டப்படுத்துவானா பசால்லு . ஏன் உயிா் வாழ்னும்னு ததானுது இநத் பிவிய குடுத்ததுக்கு நன் ி . ஏன் மனசு முழுக்க எவ்வளதவா ஆாத , ஆமுடியாத காயங்கள ் இருக்கு . நல்லவனா இருநத் ா என் வீட்டு நகறையா தபாச்சு அவங்க வீட்டு நறைக தான் தபாச்சு அப்படின் வாா்த்ததா வருமா , நா ஏன் சம்பாதிக்கனும், அப்படின் தநாக்ததாட இருக்கிவன் எனன் பனன்முடியும். இத்தறைன வருஷமா திாிந்துவாா்னு பவயிட் பண்ண . ஆனா எப்தபா அவங்க குடும்பம் முக்கியம் நானும் என் குழந்றைதயும் முக்கியம் இல்ல எப்படிதபானா எனக்கு என்ன அப்படின் எனன்ம் இ்ருக்கிவங்கள திாித்தமுடியாது தபாராடி , தபாராடி வாழநத்து எல்லாதம தபாதும் . ஆனா ஏன் அம்மா வாங்கி பகாடுத்த கட்டில் , பபட், பீதரா, டீவி, வாஷிஙம்ிசின் Home Theater, சாமான் இன்றும் எண்ணல்லா ஏன் பபாருள் இருக்தகா தயவு பசய்து அத எல்லாம் ஏன் அம்மாகிட்ட குடுக்கனும். நீ இவ்வளவு பகாடுறைமகள் பசஞ்சுவங்க கிட்ட எப்படி நா தபாக முடியும் . ஏன் குழந்றைத எப்படிதபாகும் . அப்படி அவங்க காலல் விழதுக்கு பதிலா நா உயிர விட் து எவ்வளதவா தமல்
நீ திாிநத் மாட்ட SO இத ஏன் முடிவு .”
….15.
6.17. Further, in continuation of his investigation P.W.8/(ACP) examined the witnesses P.W.1/Tmt.Shanthi and the Mahazar witnesses P.W.4/Tr. Gunasekaran and Tr. Vijay and recorded their
statements.
6.18. On the next date 05.05.2016, based on the requisition given by
P.W.8/ACP, the RDO conducted inquest and enquiry under Section
174(3) Cr.P.C., and then issued a requisition for conducting PostMortem.
6.19. P.W.7/Dr.Vinoth, working as Assistant Professor, Department of
Forensic Medicine Government Royapattah Hospital, on 05.05.2016 conducted autopsy on body of the deceased and gave the post-mortem report marked as Ex-P.12, which read as below:
The body was first seen by he undersigned at 3.30 P.M. on 05.05.15. Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present on all over the body. Post- Mortem commenced at 3.30 P.M. on 05.05.15.
Appearance found at the Post-Mortem — An incomplete, asymmetrically oblique, well defined brown ligature abrasion, 28 x 4-3.5 cm on the front and sides and back of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage; the ligature abrasion was 3 cm below the chin and 6 cm above the suprasternal notch; on the right side of the neck, the ligature abrasion was 4 cm below the right mastoid process; on the left side of the neck, the ligature abrasion was 1.5 cm below the left mastoid process; posteriorly merges with hair line. On dissection of the neck; the base of the ligature abrasion was dry and pale; the underlying sub cutaneous soft tissues was pale; Hyoid bone, major blood vessels of the neck, other laryngeal cartilages were intact.
….16.
Heart: Normal in size; C/S: All chambers contained 20 ml of fluid blood; dark red petechial haemorrhages on the anterior surface of left ventricle; Valves and Great vessels: Normal; Coronaries: Patent.
Lungs: Both lungs normal in size; multiple sub pleural petechial harmorrhages on the surface of both the lungs; C/S: Congested; Larynx & Trachea: Empty.
Stomach: Empty with no definite smell; Mucosa: Normal.
Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S. Congested.
Bladder: Empty. Pelvis and Spinal column: Intact. External genitalia: No injuries.
Scalp, vault, dura: intact Brain: Oedematous; C/s: Normal. External genitalia: intact.
Uterus: normal in size; cut section congested. Viscera Preserved for Chemical Analysis.
Opinion:
The deceased would appear to have died of ASPHYXIA DUE TO
HANGING.
6.20. Further P.W.7 has preserved the viscera and sent it for toxicology examination at Forensic Science Lab, Chennai and receive the Toxicology Report in Ex-P.13 with the opinion that no poison is detected in any of the parts in the viscera. Hence, P.W.7 opined that the death is caused by asphyxia due to hanging. Both Ex-P.12 (Post-mortem report) and Ex-P.13 (Toxicology report) are attested photo copies marked on the side of the prosecution. It is marked subject to objection. As the doctor who issued the attested copies is
….17.
examined and the documents are prove, the objection is not sustained and the documents are taken for consideration.
6.21. In continuation of the investigation, P.W.6/ACP examined the witnesses TrKasinathan, P.W.2/Tr.Thannasi, Tmt.Marriyammal, Tmt. Lakshmi, P.W.3/Tmt.Sudha, Tmt.Chithra, Tmt.Shantha, Tmt.Oomana and recorded their statements. He further examined Head Constable Tr.Savarimuthu and Head Constable
Tr.Gothandapani and Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.6/Tr.Venugopal and recorded of the statements.
6.22. P.W.2/Tr.Thannasi has not supported the prosecution case and she is treated as hostile.
6.23. P.W.3/Tmt.Sudha is a neighbour of P.W.1 residing at Velachery.
She has deposed that she knew P.W.1 and the deceased Selviyammal. She has further identified the accused-A1 as the husband of the deceased. P.W.3 has further testified about the marriage in the year 2012 between the accused-A1 and deceased and that it was arranged by the family members and conducted at a Mandapam at Vellachery. P.W.3 came to know that PW.1 (mother of deceased) gave 40 sovereign of gold jewels, cot, washing machine and other house hold articles. The accused-A1 was
….18.
working as a Photographer. After married his business met with loss and thereafter he use to drink and torture to the deceased. He
demanded ₹.2 lakhs money and P.W.1 gave ₹.2 lakhs by mortgaged her house. Thereafter, frequently the accused-A1 used to demand money.
6.24. P.W.3 has further deposed that the accused-A1 sold the Jewels and spent the money. When it was questioned by P.W.1, there was problem and the deceased Selviyammal came to her mother P.W.1’s house. P.W.1 frequently asked the return of the jewels from the accused-A1. The accused-A1 use to come drunk and quarrel with the deceased Selviyammal.
6.25. P.W.3 would further testify that on 04.05.2015 at 8.30 A.M. she went to the house of P.W.1 to invite for her sister-in-laws death rituals. When she knocked the door, the accused-A1 open it. Further the accused-A1 come out speaking in a Cellphone. When P.W.3 asked him about the deceased, the accused made gesture with his hand showing around his neck. P.W.3 got frightened that something was wrong, so she came out and shouted. Then along with others she went inside and saw the deceased lying down. They though the deceased had fainted and sprinkled water, but the
….19.
deceased did not open her eyes. By that time P.W.1 (mother of deceased) came and took the deceased to Hospital. Later P.W.3 was informed that the doctor has declared the deceased as dead.
6.26. On 07.05.2015 P.W.8/ACP, in continuation of the investigation, again went to the place of occurrence and asked P.W.1(mother of the deceased) to produced documents for comparing the handwriting of the deceased found in Ex-P.2( Suicide note). P.W.1 produced Ex-P.3-10th Mark Sheet, Ex-P.4-12th Mark Sheet and Ex-P.5-a hand written job application of the deceased. The same was recovery by P.W.8/ACP, under the Form-95/Ex-P.16 and sent to Court.
6.27. Further, when P.W.9/Tr.Mahimaiveeran, then Inspector of Police, Guindy Police Station, was in the police station, as directed by
P.W.8/ACP, he received Ex-P.6/Note-book produced by P.W.1
(mother of the deceased) under a Form-95/Ex-P.22.
6.28. On 25.05.2015 P.W.8/ACP receive the inquest and enquiry report conducted by the RDO. Ex-P.17 is the Inquest report and Ex-P.18 is the enquiry report. The RDO had given a finding that there was no dowry harassment in the death of the deceased and further recommended investigating about any other reasons for the suicide.
….20.
Based on which P.W.8/ACP examined Tr.Indrajith, RDO and recorded his statement. Further, he examined Dr.Aananth, who recorded the Accident-Register/Ex-P.19 on 04.05.2015 at
Royapattah Government Hospital and receive the Accident
Register.
6.29. Further in continuation of the Investigation P.W.8/ACP gave a requisition/Ex-P.21 to the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, to forward the documents in Ex-P.2 to Ex-P.6 for handwriting examination to the Forensic Science Lab. Based on the above materials collected by him, P.W.8 altered the offence from Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and submitted the alteration report/Ex-P.10 to the jurisdictional Court. As he was then transferred, he handed over the case file to his successor in office.
6.30. In the meantime, P.W.9, Inspector of Police, as per the direction of
P.W.8/ACP, on 02.10.2015 at about 10 A.M. arrested the accusedA1 Tr.Madhankuamr, near Maduravoyal, Earikarai Bus stop and sent him for remand. The accused A2 and A3 obtained anticipatory bail.
6.31. P.W.10/Tr.Sangaralingam, succeeded P.W.8 as the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range. On 15.01.2016 he took up further investigation in this case. He examined the witnesses
….21.
already examined by P.W.8/ACP. As they reiterated the earlier statement given before P.W.8, he did not record their further statements.
6.32. On 03.09.2016 P.W.10 examined the Medical officer P.W.5/Dr.Iswarya from Xcelent Hospital and P.W.7/Dr.Vinoth, who conducted autopsy and recorded their statements.
6.33. Further he examined Dr.V.Sivapriya, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, regarding the examination conducted by her on the documents and the reports sent to Court.
Ex-P.23 is the requisition sent by the Learned IX Metropolitan
Magistrate for forwarding the documents in Ex-P.2 to Ex-P.6 to
FSL for Hand writing examination. Ex-P.24, is the report given by Dr.Sivapriya with the opinion that “The red enclosed signature stamped and marked as A1 to A14 and Q1 to Q6 have all been written by one and the same person”. Ex-P.25 is the Reasoning Sheet based on which the opinion in Ex-P.24 was given. The marking of A1 to A14 is done in Ex-P.6 and Q1 to Q6 is done in Ex-P.2(Suicide note).
6.34. Further, P.W.10 (IO), on 12.09.2016 examined P.W.9
Tr.Mahimaiveeran Inspector of Police and recorded his statement.
….22.
After collecting the above materials P.W.10 complete the
Investigation and laid the final report for alleged offence under Section 306 IPC.
6.35. With the examination of the above witnesses the prosecution rested its evidence.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
7. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused were put to them and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incrimination evidence and the case of the prosecution. The accused-A1 has setup a defence that;
“”என் மறைனவி இக்கும் முன்பு ஜாதி றைவத்துதான் தபசினாா். தவறு பிரச்சறைன இலறை்ல. ஜாதி பிரச்சறைன தான். என் மறைனவி மாசமாக இருக்கும் தபாது பரயனுக்கு பிள்றைள பப தபகிாய் என்று பசானன்ாா்கள்.”
8. Further, the accused didn’t choose to examine any witnesses on their side and closed their defence.
….23.
9. Point for determination : Now the point that arise for determination
is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
O n the Point:
10. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution by
the Special Public Prosecutor and on the side of the accused by the Learned Advocate for the accused.
Identity, relationship and cause of death:
11. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and peruse the materials records in detail. The identity of the deceased, relationship between accused and the deceased and also the cause of death are not denied and not disputed on the side of the accused.
12. The deceased is Tmt.Selviyammal. She is the daughter of P.W.1. She was married to the accused-A1 in the year 2012l i.e., on 27.09.2012 as mention in the Ex-P18(RDO Enquiry Report). It is put to P.W.1 during crossexamination on the side of the accused that the accused belongs to Hindu
….24.
Schedule Caste and the deceased belongs to Naicker community, that the accused-A1 stayed at the house of P.W.1 and studied and thereby the deceased and the accused-A1 got acquainted and liked each other and after four or five years later they were married. These facts are admitted by P.W.1. Thus, the marital relationship between the accused-A1 and deceased remains undisputed. Hence the prosecution has establish that the accused-A1 is the husband of the deceased and the accused-A2 and accused-A3 are the father-in-law and motherin-law respectively.
13. Further, according to the prosecution the deceased has died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. M.O.1 is the Tuppattha used by the deceased for hanging herself. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide by hanging by herself. There is no witnesses who had seen the deceased hanging. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, has deposed that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 04.5.2015, she went to work in the morning. When she called her daughter the phone not answered. So, she came home and found her daughter lying in the floor unconscious and the accused was present at home at that time. Prior to the arrival of P.W.1, P.W.3/Tmt.Sudha has deposed that on the date of occurrence she went to the house of P.W1 to invite her for an occasion, at that time the accused opened the door speaking on his mobile phone, when she asked about the deceased, he made gesture taking his hand
….25.
around his neck, so P.W.2 raised alarm and went inside with others and found the deceased lying down unconscious.
14. Thus from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 it is evident that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 04.05.2016, at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m., the accused was at home along with the deceased when the deceased was found lying down.
Further from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5/Dr.Iyswariya, from Xcelent Hospital and Ex-P.10/Medico-legal Certificate, it stands proved that when the deceased was taken to hospital, she was declared as brought dead and that she was brought to the hospital with the history of hanging. The only material available is the enquiry report/Ex-P18, given by the RDO, which shows that the accused-A1 has first seen the deceased handing and he himself has alighted the deceased and laid her in the floor. In Ex-P.18/RDO-report, it is concluded that the deceased has died by hanging.
15. In Ex-P.18/RDO-report it is observed that the accused-A1 has given a statement in which he has stated that;
“நான் 3/5/2015 அன்று இரவு 12/00 மணிக்கு உங்கிதனன். எனது அருகில் என் மறைனவியும் படுத்து உங்கினாள். 4/5/2015 அன்று காறைல 8/30 மணி அளவில் எழுந்ததன். அத்கு முன்பு எனன் நடந்தது என்று எனக்கு பதாp யாது. நான்
….26.
எழுந்து பாா்த்ததபாது காறைல சுமாா் 8/30 மணி அளவில் டி.வி ஓடிக்பகாண்டிருந்தது. எனது மறைனவி எஙதக என ததடிபாா்த்ததபாது எது மறைனவி பபட்ரூமில் சுடிதாா் துப்பட்டாவால் தூக்குமாட்டிக்பகாண்டு பதாங்கி பகாண்டிருந்தாள். நான் பதிதபாய் என் மறைனவிறைய தூக்கி பிடித்து பின் அக்கம் பக்கம் உள்ளவா்கறைள அறைழதத் தன். யாரும் வராதததினால் நாதன துப்பட்டாறைவ எனது றைகயினால் ஒரு றைகயில் அவறைள தூக்கி பிடிதது் ம்பாரு றைகயில் துப்பட்டாறைவ அவிழத்்து எனது மறைனவிறைய கதீ ழ இக்கிதனன். எனது மறைனவியின் முகத்தில் தண்ணீா் ஊ்ி தட்டி பாா்தத் தன். ஆனால் அவள் எழும்பவில்றைல. உடதன அக்கம் பக்கத்தினரும் எனது மாமியாரும் வந்துவிட்டனா்@
16. This is the only material available on record to show that the deceased was found hanging by the accused-A1. He alighted her and laid her down. The medical evidence produced through P.W.7/Dr.Vinod and Ex-P.12/Post-mortem report would prove that the death has occurred by asphyxia due to hanging. In the absence of any other contra materials, the above materials produced by the prosecution proves that the deceased had died by hanging herself with M.O.1/Thuppattah and the death is suicidal in nature.
….27.
Charge under Section 498A IPC:
17. To prove the offence under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment within the meaning give under the explanations (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC, which read has below;
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being thehusband or the relative ofthe husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a)anywilfulconductwhichisofsuchanatureasislikely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuryordangertolife,limborhealth(whethermentalor physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
….28.
18. To attract the offence under Section 498A IPC the prosecution at the out-set has to prove the relationship that the accused-A1 is the husband of the deceased and A2 and A3 are his relatives.
19. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 together with the suicide note in Ex-P.2 written by the deceased would establish the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment within the meaning given under Section 498A IPC. It is submitted that the accused by their willful conduct have caused mental cruelty and harassment by insulting her and the accused-A1 would come drunk and harasses the deceased to such extent that she was driven to commit suicide. Hence, it is submitted that the charge under Section 498A IPC is proved.
20. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that there is no evidence to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC. He submitted that there is no evidence that accused demanded any things or property and harassed the deceased in connection thereof. He further pointed out that in the RDO report in Ex-P18, it is clearly found that the P.W.1(mother of the deceased) has stated that the accused never demanded any things as dowry. That, P.W1 out of her own will due to the financial crises faced in the family of the accused has
set-up separate residence and studio business. Further, it is submitted that there
….29.
is no material to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty that was sufficient enough to drive her to commit suicide. He submitted that the Ex-P.2, the suicide note of the deceased would only show the existence of family dispute that arise out of the regular wear and tear of a matrimonial life. He further submitted that merely because the accussed-A1 is drunkard and didn’t make earning will not amount to cruelty or harassment. Hence, he submitted that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not proved. He relied upon the decision in Crl.A. No. 610/2014 (Rajsekar and State by The Inspector of Police, P.6 Kodungaiyyur Police Station).
21. Upon considering the above rival contentions and perusing the evidence on record, as rightly submitted on the side of the accused, there is no material to prove cruelty within the meaning given under explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased has not stated the deceased was harassed in any manner to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand. P.W.3/Tmt.Sudha, an independent witness, would deposed that the accused-A1 demanded .2 lakhs money and P.W.1 gave .2 lakhs by m₹ ₹ ortgaging her house, and that thereafter, frequently the accused-A1 used to demand money, and that the accused-A1 sold the Jewels and spent the money. P.W.3 would admit that all these facts were narrated to her by P.W.1. But, the version given
….30.
by P.W.3 is not concurred by P.W.1(mother of the deceased). She, has not deposed about the accused demanding .2 Lakhs money after sustaining loss in₹ his business or about the accused selling the jewels and spending it. She would deposed that she leased her house for ₹.2 Lakhs for setting up a separate residence for her daughter and pledge the jewels for starting the studio for the accused-A1. She has not stated that the deceased was harassed in connection thereof. She has deposed that there was financial crises in the family of accused, that the accused A2 and A3 asked the deceased to go separately, so, P.W.1 setup separate residence. Hence, in the absence of corroboration from P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.3 regarding the demand for money is not reliable.
22. Further, P.W.1 (mother of the deceased) had given a statement in Ex-P.7 before the RDO that @vdJ kUkfndh my;yJ mtuJ bgw;nwhnuh v’;fs; trk; gznkh eifnah tujl;rizahf VJk; nfl;ljpy;iy@/ So,
there was no demand for any dowry. P.W.1 has stated that she leased her house for .2 Lakhs for setting up a separate residence for her daughter and pledge the₹ jewels for starting the studio for the accused-A1. It is not her evidence that the accused demanded the same or that the deceased was harassed towards such demand. Even in Ex-P.2, the suicide note the deceased has not made any allegations of harassment in connection with any illegal demand for any money
….31.
or things. Hence, there is no evidence to attract harassment within the meaning of explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC.
23. The deceased has died by committing suicide, so, it has to be examined as to whether there is cruelty within the meaning give in Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC. To fall within the ambit of Explanation (a), there should be willful conduct on the part of the accused, such that the deceased was driven to commit suicide or any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) is caused by the conduct of the accused.
24. The deceased is married on 27.9.2012 as mentioned in
Ex-P.18/RDO-report. After marriage she has resided at her matrimonial house. As admitted by P.W.1 even before the marriage the deceased and accused-A1 liked each other and that culminated in their marriage with the consent of both families. One has to take note that in matrimonial cruelty and harassment there cannot be direct evidence to prove cruelty or harassment as it is caused at her matrimonial home inside the house. Most probably some fact would be shared by the deceased to her mother (P.W.1) or close friends and relative. In the case of hand the deceased has left a suicide note in Ex-P.2.
25. M.O.2 is the Diary in which the deceased has written the suicide note (Ex-P.2). There is no material to discredit the reliability of Ex-P.2-Suicide
….32.
note. The recovery of M.O.2/Diary containing the suicide note soon after the occurrence is prove from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8. The same is prove to be in the handwriting of the deceased by subjecting it for handwriting expert examination along with the admitted handwriting of the deceased found in Exs- P.6/Note-book. Exs-P.24 and Ex-P.25 reports of the handwriting expert would prove that the suicide note marked and labeled as Q1 to Q6 is written by the deceased whose admitted specimen handwriting found in A1 to A14. There is no cross-examination challenging the reliability of the experts opinion, which is relevant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and can be received as evidence under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. Hence, Ex-P.2 is credible and safe to be relied upon to prove the prosecution case.
26. The only oral evidence available for the prosecution is the evidence P.W.1 (mother of the deceased). She has corroborated Ex-P.2/Suicide note in material particulars. The other witness P.W.2/Tr.Thannasi has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution. P.W.3/Tmt.Sudha has not deposed anything against the accused A2 and A3. What she has deposed against A1 is belied by the evidence of P.W.1.
27. So, on perusing the evidence of P.W.1, she has deposed the
conduct of the accused about pushing the deceased out of the matrimonial home
….33.
and asking her to go separate. She has further deposed that after P.W.1 provided separate residence to the deceased and accused-A1 by spending .2 Lakhs and₹ setting up a studio for the accused-A1 to run his business, the accused-A1 was a drunkard and caused loss to the business and harassed the deceased. Again, the accused took back the deceased to his parent’s house, where the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused by not providing food and the accused used to come drunk and harass the deceased. P.W.1 used to buy rice and other provisions. When, the deceased returned from her mother’s place to her matrimonial home, the accused A3 and A1 have quarreled with her for coming back and A3 has assaulted the deceased and also P.W.1. Due to this incident, the matter went up to the Police Station. After conciliation, the accused-A1 (husband of the deceased) agreed and went with the deceased and resided in the house of his mother-in-law (P.W.1). Even thereafter, the accused-A1 has not mended him and continued to drink and harass the deceased. As a result of which the deceased has left a detailed suicide note in Ex-P.2 in M.O.1/Diary, expressing the undignified manner she was treated and the cruelty and the harassment suffered by her under the hands of the accused, which has driven her to take a harsh decision to end her life. This poor sole unable to vent her grievance and fight it out, due to absolute frustration caused by the conduct of the accused has ended her life.
….34.
28. The evidence of P.W.1 is found to be corroborated in material particulars by the suicide note in Ex-P.2. The suicide note vividly and pictorially depicts the conduct of the accused that has put the deceased to untold humiliation and mental cruelty and harassment. She has narrated the conduct and role of the accused A2 and A3 is insulting her and harassing her. She has told that the accused-A2(father-in-law) pulled her hand and asked her to come and sleep with him in the presence of other, which is the most humiliating and undignified act that would push a victim to the heights of frustration. The accused-A1 husband being a silent spectator is a most cruel and harsh act. The accused-A3 (mother-in-law) also tried to snatch her Thali (the sacred marriage tie) from her neck. The accused-A3 had even hidden the rice, so that deceased do not have access to it. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased has vouched it by stating that her daughter was not even given food and that she used to buy her rice and other provisions. The narration made by the deceased in her suicide note would further show that the deceased, though being the wife of accusedA1, she was not treated as member of the family at all. The accused having liked and married the deceased has never bother to take care of his wife
(deceased) and left her to suffer all humiliation and insult in the hands of other. He has not only been a drunkard, but also failed to treat the deceased with love and affection and made her to suffer cruelty and harassment. The deceased has
….35.
further written that she patiently waited for 2-½ years for the accused-A1 to bestow his love and affect towards her, but he failed to do it till the end. Having married the deceased, the accused-A1 has not only moral and social responsibility, but also duty to conduct himself in such a manner that the deceased does not suffer any mental cruelty or harassment. The deceased has clearly narrated how the accused-A1 has willfully conducted himself in causing cruelty and harassment to her. There has been continuous taunting, teasing, insulting, humiliation and treated the deceased in an undignified manner. Dignified life is a fundamental life. The deceased has lost her dignity and decency in the hands of the accused. Hence, Ex-P.2 suicide note is overwhelmingly sufficient to prove that the accused A1 to A3 have willfully conducted themselves in such manner to drive the deceased to commit suicide and also caused her unbearable mental stress and injury and pushed her to the heights of frustration.
29. In Crl.A. No. 610/2014 (Rajsekar and State by The Inspector of Police, P.6 Kodungaiyyur Police Station) relied on the side of the accused it is held in para 21 and 22 as below;
21.InRajRaniv.State(DelhiAdministration),2000(1)SCC 662 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1518 : AIR 2000 SC 2559, the Court held thatwhileconsideringthecaseofcrueltyinthecontextofthe provisions of Section 498-A, IPC, the Court must examine that
….36.
the allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22. ‘Cruelty’ is a condemnable act. For the purpose of section 498-A IPC, cruelty relates to physical cruelty and mental cruelty. It will be an unbearable conduct affecting a woman or a person interested in her physically and mentally. But all vague acts or ordinary disputes between the spouses in their routine life cannot be passed as cruelty.
30. In Mohd.Hashanv.StateofA.P.,2002(7)SCC414:2002SC
SCC (Cri) 1765, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue held that mental or physical torture should be continuously practised by the Accused on the wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed in para 6 that;
“(6) Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education, etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not. The High Court in the present case, having regard to the facts found and circumstances stated, rightly concluded that the continuous
….37.
taunting or teasing the deceased by the appellants on one ground or the other amounted to mental cruelty drawing her to end her life. As found by the learned Sessions Judge, out of 11 months of married life, the deceased was forced to live in her parents house and could live with her husband for a period of two months in different spells. The High Court also took note of the fact that the appellants did not try to save the deceased although they were present when burn injuries were caused to her.”
31. Thus, applying the above ratio to the fact of the case on hand, each case has to be decided on its own facts. Ex-P.2/Suicide note and the evidence of P.W.1 would establish that the deceased had been put to continuously taunted and treated with undignified manner. She was not allowed to lead a peaceful life. She had been persistently put to suffering and harassment by the conduct of the accused, which had ultimately driven her to commit suicide.
32. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved with reliable, cogent and credible materials that the accused A1 to A3 has caused cruelty to the deceased within the meaning given in Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC.
Charge under Section 306 IPC:
….38.
33. The learned Special Public Prosecution submitted that having established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and that she died within 7 years of marriage, the prosecution is entitled for a presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act, that the accused have abetted the suicide. Further, it is argued that the suicide note in Ex-P.2 would clearly prove that the conduct of the all accused has instigated and provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
Hence, it is contended that the prosecution has also prove the charge under Section 306 IPC against all the accused.
34. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD)
142/2016 ( Manikandan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Thirueelakudi Police
Station) and Crl.A. No. 610/2014 (Rajsekar and State by The Inspector of Police, P.6 Kodungaiyyur Police Station) and contended that it order to prove the charge under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused had the necessary intention or mens rea to commit the offence, that there should be a positive act by the accused that is proximate to the time of the deceased committing suicide.
35. The Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the accused had the
….39.
intention to abet the suicide. He submitted that mere family quarrel, harassment or regular wear and tear in the family life will not amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC. He submitted that there should be instigation, aiding or conspiracy as given under Section 107 IPC to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC.
36. On examining the evidence on records, the deceased committed suicide on 04.05.2016. It is admittedly the case of the prosecution that four months prior to her death the deceased left her matrimonial home along with her husband (A1) and was residing at her mother’s place. There is no evidence that thereafter the accused A2 and A3 had any contact with the deceased. So, there is no possibility of the accused A2 and A3 subjecting the deceased with cruelty soon before her death in order to attract a presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act against them. The allegations of cruelty and harassment made as against the accused A2 and A3, both by P.W.1 and in Ex-P.2/Suicide-note are incidents that took place four months prior to her death. So, it is apparent that the act of cruelty committed by the accused A2 and A3 cannot be proximate and have live link with the commission of suicide by the deceased after a gap of four months. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal ((2010) 1 SCC 707) referred in the judgment relied on the side of the accused it is held that;
….40.
… “Merely on the allegation of harassment withoutthere being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
37. Further in, in M. Mohan v. State by D.S.P., Karaikudi (CDJ 2011 SC 190 = 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl) 273) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46.TheintentionoftheLegislatureandtheratioofthe cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person undersection 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
38. Hence, applying the above ratio to the case on hand, there is no
evidence to prove that the accused A2 and A3 had the necessary intention to abet suicide by the deceased and also there is no evidence of positive action by them that is proximate to the time of occurrence as they were living separately since 4 months prior to the death. Hence, in the facts and circumstances
….41.
discussed above the charge under Section 306 IPC as against the accused A2 and A3 is not proved.
39. As far as the accused-A1, who is the husband of the deceased, there is evidence otherwise pointing to the guilt of the accused. Since marriage the accused-A1 has been subjecting the deceased with mental cruelty and harassment. It is not a mere case of accused-A1 is a drunkard and not supporting the family. The conduct of the accused-A1 (husband) is such that he has least care for his wife. Ex-P.2/Suicide-note leave no doubt that the accusedA1 is the prime cause and that the deceased was left with no other option but to end her life due to the undignified way the deceased was treated by the accused. The accused-A1 has set-up a defence that because he belongs to schedule class, P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, was frequently insulting and quarreling with the deceased, which provoked her to commit suicide. But, the suicide note (ExP.2) speaks otherwise and states that it was the husband who was all along putting the deceased to mental stress and trauma. It is not a mere case of the husband being a drunkard and not giving money for family or a case of normal wear and tear of family life. The suicide note goes beyond that the explains the grave manner in which the husband (accused-A1) conducted himself. In fact, he has pushed the deceased to the helm of frustration that the deceased was left with no other option, but to end her life.
….42.
40. On the date of occurrence the deceased and the accused-A1 were together at home. When, the deceased was found dead hanging the accused has not even called anyone for help. He himself has alighted the body and laid it down. He has not even tried to give her any medical assistance. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 would show that the accused-A1 had acted in such cool manner even after the deceased was found dead. He, had made gestures to P.W.3 showing his hand around his neck. When P.W.1 rushed home to see her daughter, the accused has acted vaguely and told that the deceased has fainted and fell down. He had not come to take her to hospital. Further, when P.W.1 left for work the deceased was alive. When she returned at 9.00 a.m., the deceased was found dead. In the intervening time the accused-A1 was the only person who was with the deceased. He has not given any proper explanation as to what has happened in the intervening time, which is exclusively within his knowledge. The burden is upon the accused to prove it under Section 106 of Evidence Act. The accused has not chosen to give any explanation except saying that due to caste difference, P.W.1 was quarreling and insulted the deceased, which cannot be reliable in the light of Ex-P.2/Suicide-note. There is also no reliable evidence to prove it. But, the facts and circumstance on records would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused-A1 has played an active
….43.
role that amounts to instigation, goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
41. Section 113A Evidence Act provides that the Court may draw a presumption that the accused has abetted the suicide provided it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. In the case on hand it is proved that the deceased has committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. Further, it is also proved that accused-A1 and his relative have subjected the deceased with cruelty, punishable under section Section 498A IPC. Further, he was the only person with the deceased at the time the deceased committed suicide. What happened inside the four walls of the house is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The accused has not let-in any evidence on the contrary to rebut the materials against him. In
2021 AIR(SC) 4174=CDJ 2021 SC 602 (Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan & Another Versus The State of Gujarat), when the question of drawing presumption on satisfaction of the requirement under
Section 113A of Evidence Act, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as thus;
38.Thus,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase, it can be safely concluded that the Courts below committed noillegalityinholdingthattheaccused-appellantsabetted the suicide of the deceased. The matter can be viewed from
….44.
another angle. The prosecution was successful in establishing the charge under Section 498-A of cruelty against the appellants from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant and died within the four walls of her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances.
39. Atwo-JudgeBenchofthisCourt, inthe caseofRamesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. ((2014) 11 SCC 516)in almost identical facts and circumstances, has
observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under:-
“Moreover, admittedly the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is, therefore, clearly attracted to this case. Presumption contemplated therein must spring in action. This provision was introduced by Criminal Law Second Amendment Act, 1983 to resolve the difficulty of proof where married women are forced to commit suicide but incriminating evidence is difficult to get as it is usually available within the four walls of the matrimonial home.
In this case, the prosecution has led evidence to establish cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased which is rightly taken into account by the High Court. Thus, the foundation for the presumption exists. The appellant, however, has led no evidence to rebut the presumption. Therefore, it can be safely concluded in the facts of this case that the appellant abetted the suicide of the deceased.”
40. Reference may also to be made to the followingobservations of this Court in the case of Satish Shetty Vs.
State of Karnataka ((2016) 12 SCC 759):-
….45.
“Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498 A, in our view only in a rare case, the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment, if other requirements of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act stand satisfied. This proposition is amply supported by the view taken by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of K.Prema S.Rao & Anr. Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors.
((2003)1 SCC 217).”
42. Hence, applying the above law laid down in Gumansinh@Lalo@ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan & Another Versus The State of Gujarat, the prosecution having prove the requirement under Section 113A Evidence Act and taking into other fact and circumstances and that the accused has not let-in any rebuttal evidence, this Court may draw a presumption that the accused-A1
has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased on the date of
occurrence. Hence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 306 IPC as against the accused-A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. While, the charge under Section 306 IPC as against the accused A2 and A3 are not prove as they were living separated since 4 months prior to the deceased committing suicide and there is no proximity.
43. Thus from the above discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 under Section 498A IPC and the guilty of the accused-A1 under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution
….46.
has not prove the guilt of the accused A2 and A3 under Section 306 IPC. The point for determination is answered accordingly.
Result:
44. In the result,
i) the accused A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge under
Section 498A IPC; ii) the accused-A1 is found guilty for the charge under Section
306 IPC, and iii) the accused A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 306 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charge under Section 306 IPC.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of March, 2022//
Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….47.
S.C No. 340/2016 ( State by The Assistance Commissioner of Police Vs.
Madhankumar and two others)
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 16.03.2022 at 12.05 P.M .
45. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused were examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
A1-. நான் எநத் தப்பும் பசய்யவில்றைல .
A2-. சம்பவம் நடந்தது பதா p யாது
A3-. நான் சம்பவயிடத்தில் இல்றைல .
46. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to
2.30 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of March, 2022.
Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….48.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 340/2016 – DATED: 16.03.2022 AT
3.00 P.M .
47. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the aggravating circumstances overpower the mitigating circumstances. The deceased was a young woman aged about 26 years. She started