[6/1, 19:36] Sekarreporter: Spp arrhi argued [6/1, 19:36] Sekarreporter: வரதட்சணை கொடுமை செய்து மனைவியை தற்கொலைக்கு தூண்டிய வழக்கில் கணவருக்கு 2 பிரிவுகளில் 10 வருடம் மற்றும் கணவரின் அக்காவிற்கு 3 வருடம் தண்டனை விதித்து சென்னை மகளிர் நீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பு.. SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003. Present : Thiru. T.H. Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L., Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai Dated, Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022

J.F.No. 61 – Page
Judicial Form No. 61
(Cr.R.P 106)
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru. T.H. Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ itfhrp jp’;fs; 17Mk; ehs; brtt; ha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 154/2017
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006652-2017)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.11/2017 in (Crime No.746/2016-D-1, Triplicane Police Station) on the file of the Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences against the accused under Section 304(B) and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
Complainant The Assistant Commissioner of Police,, Triplicane Range, Chennai – 600 002.
(Crime No.746/2016 in D-1, Triplicane Police Station)
Name of the Accused 1. S.Raja, M/A. 25/2016,
S/o. Sampath
2. Anandthi, F/A.40/2016,
W/o. Suresh
Offence charges Under Section 498A and 306 IPC
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result the accused-A1 is found guilty
J.F.No. 61 – Page
as charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and the accused-A2 is found guilty as charged under Section 498A IPC only. The accused-A2 is found not guilty under Section 306 IPC and acquitted for the charge under Section 306 IPC under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Sentence Accordingly, the accused are convicted and
sentences as below;
(i) the accused-A1 is convicted underSection 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 is convicted underSection 498A IPC and accordingly sentence to undergo THREE YEARS SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine of .5000/-, in₹ default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE MONTHS under Section 498A IPC;
(iii) the period already undergone by theaccused-A1 from 19.05.2016 to 26.07.2016 shall
J.F.No. 61 – Page
be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.; The accused-A2 is released on anticipatory bail.
(iv) both the sentences imposed on the
accused-A1 shall run concurrently;
(v) Total fine .20,000/₹ -.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. No case properties are produced and
marked on the side of the prosecution. Hence, no orders is passed thereon.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or
357A Cr.P.C Perused the oral and documentary
evidence. P.W.1 the mother of the deceased has died pending trial. There is no material placed on record to show the other dependents of the deceased.
Hence, no compensation order is passed.

Description of the accused
Serial No. Name Husband’s
Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. S.Raja, Sampath Hindu Coolie No.14, SM Nagar, Pallavan Road, Chnnai – 02. 25/2016
2. Ananthi Suresh Hindu Housewife No.164, Annai
Therasa Street,
Reddypalayam,
Chengelpet Taluk,
Kancheepuram
District. 40/2016

Date of Occurrence 16.05.2016
Complaint-Final Report 27.02.2017
Apprehension or appearance A1-19.05.2016
J.F.No. 61 – Page
A2 – 15.07.2016 (Anticipatory bail)
Released on bail A1-26.07.2016
(As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court in Crl.O.P. No.15063/2016 dated 18.07.2016).
A2- 15.07.2016
(As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court in Crl.O.P. No.13440/2016 dated 27.06.2016).
Commitment 19.06.2017
Commencement of Trial 16.08.2017
Close of trial 26.05.2022
Sentence or Order 31.05.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 31.05.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Mrs.B. Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused M/s.P.Prince Premkumar,
B.Jayakumar and U.Yuvaraj S.Silambarasan,
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM
CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ itfhrp jp’;fs; 17Mk; ehs; brt;tha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 154/2017
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006652-2017)
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range, Chennai – 600 002.
(Crime No.746/2016 in D-1, Triplicane Police Station)
… Complainant

– Vs. –
1. S.Raja, M/A. 25/2016,
S/o. Sampath,
No.14, SM Nagar,
Pallavan Road, Chennai – 2.
2. Anandhi, F/A.40/2016,
W/o. Suresh,
No.164, Annai Therasa Street,
Reddypalayam,
Chengelpet Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. … Accused

….2.
This Sessions case is taken on file on 28.06.2017 and came up on
26.05.2022 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.Prince Premkumar, S.Silambarasan, B.,Jayakumar and U.Yuvaraj, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and perusing the material records, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.746/2016, before the committal Court of the Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that the accused-A1 was married to the deceased Tmt.Sudha on 11.05.2014. Thereafter the accused-A1 along with his sister, the accused-A2, treated the deceased with cruelty and harassment for not giving 5 sovereign of gold jewels, fridge,
Washing machine as agreed to be at the time of marriage. Further the accusedA1 used to come home drunk and treated the deceased with cruelty and harassed her by not giving money for family expenses. Further, after the first birthday celebration of their child on 11.03.2016, the accused-A1 and A2 further treated the deceased to cruelty and harassment for not giving gold chain and silver
….3.
golusu at the time of birthday for the child. Hence, unable to bear all such cruelty and harassment on 16.05.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Hence, it is alleged that accused-A1 and A2 have committed the offence punishable under Sections
304-B IPC
2. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the
offence by the Committal Court, on appearance of the accused, all the copies of documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused by the Committal Court 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 are exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai, vide Order dated 19.06.2017 in P.R.C. No.11/2017, 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 the Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
3. 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
….4.
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 triable by this Court of Sessions under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, instead of Section 304B IPC, this Court framed charges 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.
Prosecution side evidence:
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 17 witnesses cited, 10 witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.13 are marked on the side of the prosecution. During cross examination of P.W.10 (Investigating officer) Exs-X1 and X2 are marked. No Material Objects.
5. The facts set-out from the prosecution evidence in a nutshell
is as follows:-
5.1. P.W.1, Tmt.Saraswathy is the mother of the deceased Tmt.Sudha. P.W.2, Tmt.Gunavathy is the sister and P.W.3, Tr.Dinakaran is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.1, the mother of deceased and defacto-
….5.
complainant is examined in chief on 20.09.2018. In the course of chief-examination she deposed that she is in possession of the diary written by the deceased. Hence, the matter was adjourned for producing the same and for continuation of examination in chief by P.W.1. But, later the prosecution filed a report stating that P.W.1 had died and therefore the evidence of P.W.1 was closed. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 remains incomplete and not cross examined.
5.2. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have deposed in favour of the prosecution. According to their evidence, the deceased Tmt.Sudha is the daughter of P.W.1. She was married to the accused-A1 in the year 2014. The accused-A1 was working as a sanitary cleaning worker in the Chennai Corporation. At the time of marriage 5 sovereign of gold jewels, Burro, T.V. Cot and other articles were given. The accused demanded further dowry and harassed the deceased and sent her back to her mother’s house.
5.3. The deceased had studied degree and she was beautiful. The accused-A1 used to suspect her and beat her and demanded her to go and get money. Further, the accused-A1 would come drunk and beat the deceased indiscriminately. The deceased used to go and narrate her suffering to her mother (P.W.1) and to P.W.2 and P.W.3. Thereafter, the deceased also gave a complaint in this regard at All
….6.
Women Police Station. But, they compromise and sent her back with the accused-A1. Later, she gave birth to a child and first birthday was held 11.03.2016. For which silver golusu and silver arinana kayiru (அரரநநணண கயயற ), gold ring, dress and cake were bought and given by P.W.1. But on the next day, both the accused quarrel for not giving gold chain and big size silver golusu. They have beaten her and send her to her mother’s place and asked her to stay there itself. Then, the accused and the mother of the accused came and they conciliated the matter and took the deceased with them.
5.4. Thereafter, on 16.05.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. P.Ws. 2 and 3 received information that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.
5.5. P.W.4, Tr.Arun is residing at M.S. Nagar and working as Auto driver. On the night of the occurrence he came to know that the deceased committed suicide and there was no one to help. So he along with his friend went and alighted the body of the deceased and sent her to hospital.
5.6. P.W.8, Dr.Rajesh was at the time working as casualty Medical Officer at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital. On
….7.
16.05.2016 at about 10.35 p.m., he examined the deceased Tmt.Sudha brought by her husband Tr.Raja (accused-A1) with the history of hanged at 10.00 p.m. at her residence situated at Pallavan Salai. On examination there was no pulse. There was laceration mark 7x3cm on the neck. He gave necessary treatment for reviving the patient. As she didn’t respond for treatment, he declared her dead at 11.00 p.m. and sent the body to the mortuary. Ex-P.7 is the Accident Register issued by him in this regard.
5.7. On the same day on 16.05.2016, at 23.45 hours while P.W.9,
Tr.Arumozhi was working as S.I.of Police, D1 Triplicane Police Station, P.W.1, Tmt. Saraswathy, mother of the deceased, came to the police station and gave a complaint in Ex-P.8. He received the same and registered the case in Cr.No.746/2016 under Section 174(3) CrPC. Ex-P.9 is the printed FIR. As the deceased women had died within 2 years of her marriage, he handed over the complaint and FIR to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range, for necessary investigation.
5.8. P.W.10, Tr.Muthuvelpandi, then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range received the complaint and FIR and took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses P.W.4/Tr.Arun and P.W.7/Tr.Vijay and
….8.
prepared the observation mahazar in Ex-P.10 and rough sketch in Ex-P.11.
5.9. Further P.W.10 examined the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3, witnesses Tr.Gopinath, Tmt.Kamatchi and Tmt.Rejinadevi and the mahazar witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.7 and recorded their statements. He gave requisition to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for conducting inquest and enquiry under Section 174 CrPC.
5.10. P.W.6, Tr.Aranganathan was then working as Personal Assistant cum Sub-Divisional magistrate to the District Collector, Chennai.
He received the requisition in Ex-P.4 and conducted enquiry under
Section 174(3) CrPC. He went to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital at 3.35 p.m. on 17.05.2016 and examined the witnesses and panchayat witnesses and conducted inquest. He recorded the statement of the accused Tr.Raja, husband of the deceased, mother and brother of the deceased and panchayat witnesses Tr.Palanivel, Tr.R..Dinakaran, Tmt.Gunavathy, Tmt. Kala and Tmt.Manjula and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he completed the enquiry and on 31.05.2016 sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range in Ex-P.5, reporting that there is dowry harassment in the death of the deceased.
….9.
5.11. On 19.05.2016 P.W.10, the Investigating Officer altered the offence under Section 174(3) CrPC to 304 B IPC and submitted the alteration report in Ex-P.12 to the jurisdictional Learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate. On the same day at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused-A1 and recorded confession statement given by him in the presence of witnesses Tr.Muthu and Tr.Charlie. Further, in continuation of his investigation P.W.10 examined the medical officers P.W.8, Dr.Rajesh who issued copy of the Accident Register and P.W.5, TD.Gugan who conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased and issue the postmortem certificate in Ex-P2, which reads as below:
The body was first seen by the undersigned at 04.05 P.M. on 17.05.2016. Its condition then was Body cold and rigor mortis present all over the dead body, Post-Mortem Hypostasis present over the back sparing areas of contact flattening. Post-Mortem commenced at 04.05 P.M. on 17.05.2016.
Appearance found at the Post-Mortem Dead body of a female. Moderately built and nourished, Eyes-closed, cornea hazy, pupils dilated equally on both sides and fixed.
Finger nails blue in color. Complexion – dark. Mouth and lips – Intact. No external injury could have been detected even after careful examination of the dead body.
Ligature material not produced.
LIGATRE MARK ANTEMORTEM IN NATURE:
….10.
A pressure abrasion with a dry base and of size 4 x 1-2 cm was seen coursing upwards and backwards from at and below thyroid cartilage in midline front and left side of neck, the ligature abrasion was 7cm below the chin and 10 cm above the supra-sternal notch; on the right side of neck it was faintly seen 9 cm below the right Mastoid process and on the left side of neck it was 12 cm below the left Mastoid process; it faintly merged with hairline on the back of neck.
ON DISSECTION OF NECK: Base of the ligature abrasion was dry, pale and parchment like; Larynx and Trachea: Empty; Hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages and the Blood vessels of neck were intact.
ON DISSECTION OF HEAD:
SCALP- INTACT, CARNIAL VAULT- INTACT, MEMBRANES: INTACT. BRAIN: SURFACE VESSELS ENGORGED AND CONGESTED. BRAIN EDEMATOUS C/S- CONGESTED. BASE OF SKULL – INTACT.
ON DISSECTION OF CHEST:
Chest wall – INTACT; Ribs and cartilage – INTACT
HEART: Normal in size, Right ventricle Clotted Blood, Left ventricle: Empty.
VALVE AND CORONARIES: Patent. Great Vessels: normal, Multiple pin point petechial hemorrhages seen over the apex.
LUNGS: Normal in size, multiple pin point petecial hemorrhages seen over the inter lobar fissures C/S- congested.
ON DISSECTIONOF ABDOMEM:
….11.
STOMACH: Contains 200 gm of partially digested food particles, mucosa – normal with no specific smell.
INTESTINES: chyme and fecal matter
LIVER, SPLEEN & KIDNEYS: Normal in size C/S. Congested BLADDER: Empty.
GENITALS: Normal with no injuries.
UTERUS: Normal in size C/S- Empty endometrium thickened in menstrual phase.
PELVIS/SPINAL COLUMN: INTACT.
VESCERA PRESERVED FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Opinion as to cause of death-
(a) Reserved pending report of……………………
(b) The deceased died OF ASPHYXIA DUE TO HANGING.
5.12. P.W.5/Dr.Gugan, also preserved the viscera and sent it to Forensic Science Lab for examination and the Toxicology report in Ex-P.3 was received with the finding that no poison was detected.
5.13. P.W.10 (I.O), further examined P.W.6, Tr.Aranganathan, SubDivisional Magistrate and recorded his statement. Ex-P.13 series are the statement of witnesses recorded by P.W.6. Further, he examined P.W.9, Tr.Arulmani, S.I. Police, who registered the first information report and recorded his statement. The accused-A2 obtained anticipatory bail and was released on bail. With this, he
….12.
completed his investigation and filed a final report as against the accused under Section 304B IPC.
Examination of Accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and her defence:
6. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence against the accused were put to them and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. They, denied all the such incriminating materials as false. The accused choose to let-in defence evidence and examined two witnesses as D.Ws. 1 and 2.
7. D.W.1, Tr.Gopinath and D.W.2, Tmt.Kamatchi are actually cited as prosecution side witnesses as L.Ws. 5 and 6 in the memo of evidence. They were dispensed on the side of the prosecution. They are residing the at No.15, S.M. Nagar, Pallavan Salai, Chennai, in the 1st floor. The place of occurrence is the 2nd floor of the same building, where the accused-A1 and the deceased were residing. The accused have summons them as witnesses and examined on
their side.
8. D.W.1 and D.W.2 are spouses. D.W.1 would deposed that the
accused-A2 is residing out side and she used to visit her mother’s house. Further he has deposed that frequently there used to be quarrel between the accuesd-A1 and the deceased and they used to pacify them. The deceased quarrel by saying
….13.
that she is educated, the accused is working as scavenger and she does not like him coming near to her. D.W.2 would deposed that the accused used to come drunk and it will cause frequent problem.
9. Further, D.W.1 would depose that on the date of occurrence it was counselor election time. The accused came down and told that his wife has locked herself and not opening. He along with few neighbours went and saw. The door was not opened. So, they broke open the door and found the deceased hanging with a rope. All of them alighted the deceased and took her to hospital. He would further deposed that he previously he was asked to come to Court by police and told him to deposed about dowry harassment. As he refused, he was sent back.
10. D.W.2 would further deposed that on the date of occurrence, during election time she went out on work. Her husband had gone to buy tiffen. A quarrel broke out between the accused-A1 and the deceased. She, pacified them. But, the quarrel became severe. Then she went to shop. Before, she could return, the deceased committed suicide and that her husband broke open the door and alighted the deceased.
….14.
11. After examining the above two defence witnesses, the defence side was close.
Point for determination:
12. Now the point that arise for determination in this case is; Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under sections 498A and 306 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
13. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and the accused. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor also filed written arguments.
14. It is contended on the side of the prosecution that from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 it is proved that deceased has narrated her suffering to them and complained that she was treated with cruelty asking her to to get more jewels and money. Further, she was ill-treated and harassed by her husband (A1), who used to come drunk and beat her. It is further contended that because P.W.1 has died before completing her examination in chief, she could not examined in full, but, there are other materials to prove the occurrence. Further, it is submitted on the side of the prosecution that Exs-X1 and X2, would prove that the deceased had given complaint to the All Women Police
….15.
Station (AWPS) alleging cruelty and harassment by both the accused and she was consoled and pacified. The accused have promised to take care of the deceased, but, repeatedly harassed her due to which she was pushed to extent of committing suicide.
15. It is further submitted that the prosecution the RDO report given by P.W.6 would also corroborated and prove that the accused have committed cruelty, therefore, the charge under 498A IPC is proved. It is submitted that once Section 498A IPC is prove, a presumption may be draw that the accused have abetted suicide and they can be convicted with the aid of Section 113A Evidence Act. It is pointed out by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor that on the date of occurrence the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence is admitted by letting in defence evidence and that D.W.2 would deposed that there was severe quarrel on that date between the accused-A1and the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that charges against the accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. Per contra the learned Counsel for the accused would contend that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is incomplete and cannot be relied upon. Further, he submitted that there are material contradiction found in the evidence when compared to the earlier complaints. He submitted that in Ex-
….16.
P.8/Complaint and Ex-P.9/FIR, there is no allegation for demand for dowry or cruelty in connection there of. It is submitted that it is only mentioned that the accused used to come drunk and didn’t give money for family expenses, for which there used to be quarrel. Further, reference is made to Ex-X1 and X2 and it was contended that there was no complaint of cruelty or harassment. Hence, it is submitted that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed.
17. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are relative and interested witnesses and that they are hearsay witnesses and therefore, they cannot be relied upon. Further, it is contended that from the evidence of D.W.s 1 and 2 the case of prosecution is disprove. It is submitted that the accused-A2 is living separately and no way connected with the occurrence and that she is falsely implicated. It is therefore contended that the prosecution has not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
18. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and examined the oral and documentary evidence in detail. Undoubtedly, P.W.1, Tmt.Saraswathy is the defacto-complainant. She had given complaint in Ex-P.8 after the death of her daughter. Based on which, the case is registered and after the investigation culminated in filing the charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has examined P.W.1, Tmt.Saraswathy as a witness. However, during her chief-examination on 20.09.2018 she has narrated the facts in support of the
….17.
prosecution case. Further, she had stated that her daughter has left a diary which was found in the bureau, were she had written down the persons for the cause of her. Hence, this Court found it is necessary to given opportunity for P.W.1 to produce the said diary and postponed the examination in chief. Unfortunately, before she could be recalled for further examination, she had died on 01.03.2019 and therefore the prosecution could not produced P.W.1 for further examination. However, before her death when witness warrant was pending against P.W.1, the prosecution chose to produce a diary before this Court on 18.12.2018. But, it was not marked on the side of the prosecution and not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 which is incomplete and not subjected to cross-examination cannot be considered as substantive evidence. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be looked in to and cannot be taken for consideration for deciding the prosecution case.
19. As rightly argued on the side of the prosecution, even in the absence of the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution has examined the corroborative witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the aunt and uncle of the deceased respectively. P.W.2 and P.W.3 had deposed clearly narrating such facts regarding the manner in which the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassed by the accused. Section 498A IPC and its explanations defines cruelty as below;
….18.
“498A. 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 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) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or 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.
20. On scrutinizing the evidence produced on the side of the
prosecution, there is ample evidence to prove that the act of the accused would clearly fall within the ambit of the explanation ‘a’ and ‘b’ under Section 498A IPC. P.W.2, has deposed that “தயரமணததணயறணக 5 பவனண நரகயமண பபரரந , டவய, கடணடலண மறணறமண சயலலண ரர சநமநனணகளமண ககநடதணரதநமண . ரமலமண நரக வரதடணசரண ரவணணடமண எனணற ரகடணட எதயநயகளண இரவரமண சதநரவ ககநடரம படதணதய மநதமண ஒர மரற எனத அகணகந வபடணடறணக அனபணபய வயடவநநணகளண . சதந அழகநக இரபணபநநண . படதணதவநண. அதனநலண சநரண தகபணபடணட அடதணத ரமலமண பணமண வநஙகண ய வநணதநலண தநனண வரரவணணடமண எனணற அனபணபய வயடவநநணகளண. 1 வத எதயநய அதயகமநக மத
….19.
அரநதணயவயடணட கணணமணண கதநயயநமலண அடபணபநநண. சதந எஙணகளயடமண வநணத கறய அழவநநண. சதநவமண அ .சந.1 மண எதயநயகளண இரவரமண வரதடணசரண ரகடணட அடகணகட ககநடரம கசயணவதநக கறய மகளயநண கநவலநணயரலயததணயலண பகநநண ககநடதணதனநண. ரபநலபசநநண சமநதநனமண கசயணத அனபணபய ரவதணதநநணகளண . 2016 மண ஆணணடலண சதநவயனண கழநணரதகணக 11.03.2016 அனணற பயறநதண நநளண வநணதத . நநஙணகளண கவளணளய ககநலச , கவளணளய அரரநநணணகயயற, தஙணக ரமநதயரமண, டரஸண, ரககண ஆகயயரவ வநஙணகய ககநணணட அவநணகளத வபடணடறணக கசனணரறநமண. நலலண மரறயயலண பயறநதணநநளண ககநணணடநடரனநமண. மறநநளண சதநரவ பயறநதண நநளகணக கழநணரதகணக தஙகண கசயயனண ரபநடவயலணரல. கபநயய ககநலச வநஙகண யககநடகணகவயலணரல என அடதணத நப உனத அமணமந வபடணடரல இரநதண ககநளண எனணற எஙணகளத அகணகந வபடணடறணக அனபணபய வயடணடநநணகளண. 3 நநடணகளண சதந எனத அகணகந வடப ணடலண இரநணதநநண . அதனண பயனணப 15 மண ரததயயனணற ஆஜநண எதயநயகளமண 1 வத எதயநயயயனண அமணமநவமண எனத அகணகந வபடணடறணக வநணத கமதவநக நரக எடதணத ககநடஙணகளண இபணரபநத அ னபணபய ரவயஙணகளண எனணற கறய சதநரவ அரழதணத கசனணறநநணகளண. அதனண பயனணப 2 மநதஙணகளண நனணறநக இரநணதநநணகளண. அதனணபயனணப 16.05.2016 அனணற இரவ 11 மணயகணக எஙணகளத வடபணடறணக அரகயலண ஓட வநணத எனத அகணகந மகளண தகணக ரபநடணட இறநதண வயடணடதநக கறயனநநணகளண .”
21. The above testimony of P.W.2 is materially corroborated by P.W.3, the uncle of the deceased. He would also deposed that, “1 வத எதயநய தயனமமண கடததண வயடணட சணணரட ரபநடவதநக எனத அகணகந மகளண எனனண யடமண
….20.
வநதண கறவநளண. நரக வநஙகணய வந பணமண வநஙணகய வந எனணற கறய சணணரடரபநடவநநண என எனத அகணகந மகளண கறயனநளண. எனணன வரதடணசரண ககநணணட வநணதநயண எனணற 1 வத எதயநய அவளயடமண ரகடணடளணளநநண. 1 வத எதயநய சதநரவ இதறணகநக அடதணதளணளநநண . நநஙணகளண இத சமமண நணதமநக அணணணநசநரல மகளயநண கநவலண நயரலயததண யலண பகநநண ககநடதரண தநமண . ரபநலபசநநண இரதரபணபயனரரயமண அரழததண வயசநநயததண சமரசமண கசயணத ரவதணதநநணகளண . 2015 மண ஆணணட இறதயயயலண கழநணரத பயறநணதத . கழநணரதகணக 1 வயத ஆகமணவரர இரவரமண வநழணநணதநநணகளண . அபணரபநதமண 1 வத எதயநய அடகணகட சதநரவ அடதணத தகரநற கசயணதநநண. 2 மநதஙணகளண சதந எஙணகளடனண வநணத இரநணதநநண. சதநவயனண கழநரணதகணக மதலண பயறநதணநநளண வநணதத. கழநரணதகணக எனத அகணகந ககநலச, அரரநநணண கயயற, டரரஸண, தஙணக ரமநதயரமண ஆகயயரவ வநஙகணய ககநடதணதநநண. நலலணமரறயயலண பயறநதணநநளண ககநணணடநடவயடணட கசனணற வயடணரடநமண. மறநநளண கநரலயயலண 1 வத எதயநயயமண அவரத அகணகநவநன 2 வத எதயநயயமண சதநரவ நரக அதயகமநக வநஙணகயவரவயலரணல எனனண நரக ரபநடணடநநணகளண எனணற கறய அடதணத அனபணபய வயடணடநநணகளண. அதனண பயறக இர கடமணபதணதநரமண சதநரவ அனபணபயவயடணரடநமண. 4 நநடணகளண கழயததண இரவ 11 மணயகணக சதந இறநதண வயடணடதநக எஙணகளகணக ரபநனண வநதணத.
22. Thus, P.Ws. 2 and 3 would clearly and cogently deposed that the accused-A1, husband of the deceased used to come drunk and used to beat the deceased and harassed. Further, he has also harassed her to bring jewels and
….21.
cash. After the first birthday celebration, the deceased was further harassed for not giving gold chain and big silver golusu for the baby. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 had deposed that the deceased was treated with cruelty and harassed by both the accused-A1 and A2. There is no material in the cross-examination to discredit their evidence. The above facts narrated be clearly would satisfy the definition for cruelty and harassment given under explanation ‘a’ and ‘b’ of Section 498A IPC.
23. It is contended on the side of the accused that both P.W.2 and P.W.3 are relatives and interested witnesses and hence cannot be relied. This contention cannot be sustained in the case of this nature. Useful reference can be made to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 SC
4174 =2021(10) SCALE 198 (Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan
& Anr Vs. St of Gujarat), wherein it is held as below;
“21. Most often the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent witness is available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value of the
….22.
close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interested witness.
22. However, when the Court has to appreciate the evidence of any interested witness it has to be very cautious in weighing their evidence or in other words, the evidence of an interested witness requires a scrutiny with utmost care and caution. The Court is required to address itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such a witness; whether the evidence is reliable, trust-worthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Another important aspect to be considered while analyzing the evidence of interested witness is whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such evidence is probable or not. If the evidence of any interested witness/relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent and trust-worthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the Court, there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.”
24. Thus, applying the above ratio, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 have deposed that the deceased told them about her plight in the hands of the accused. Further, their evidence that the deceased also gave earlier complaints is also additional circumstance that would prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. This fact is also corroborated by Ex-X.1 and Ex-X.2, earlier complaints.
….23.
25. It is further contended on the side of the accused that in Ex-P.8, complaint and the earlier complaint in Ex-X1. There was is allegations of dowry demand or dowry harassment. It is submitted that, the only allegation made is that the accused was the drunkard and not the supporting the family expenses. Therefore it is submitted that the contradictory and improved version will cause doubt upon the prosecution case.
26. It is settled law that the complaint/FIR are not an encyclopedia. The real facts would come up only during the investigation. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 have cogently stated that suffering of the deceased and that prior to her death of the deceased had lodged complaint at All Women Police Station for the cruelty and harassment made to her by the accused. This fact is not denied from the side of the accused. In fact during cross-examination of P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, the accused has chosen to cross examining P.W.10 regarding the earlier complaint given by the deceased on 10.10.2015 which is marked as Ex-X1 and further the CSR case file in CSR No.151/2015 is also marked as Ex-X.2(Series). Ex-X.1 and Ex-X.2 are admitted on the side of the accused and it contents are neither denied nor challenged on the side of the accused. So, the same can be looked into and taken into consideration for deciding whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused.
….24.
27. In Ex-X.1 the deceased has given complaint on 10.10.2015 to the Inspector of Police, Triplicane Police Station which has been referred to All Women Police Station. In the said complaint it is stated that the accused-A1, husband of the deceased is suspecting her and further listening to his mother he is torturing her. She has further stated that due to the harassment she is not willing to live with her husband.
28. So, as rightly argued on the side of the accused, there is no allegations of dowry demand or harassment in connection with demand for any things is made in the complaint made on 10.10.2015. However, on perusing ExX.2 series, the case file, it reveals that there is in another complaint given by the deceased in which she has narrated the facts that “எனத கணவநண தயனமமண கடதணதவயடணட அடதணத தனணபறததண கயறநநண. கசலவயறணக தயனமமண 20 ரபநயணதநனண தரகயறநநண. 11.3.2016 ரநறணற எனத மகனகணக மதலநமண ஆணணட பயறநதணநநளண ரவதணரதநமண. எனத அமணமநவமண தமணபயயமண அவநணகளநலண மடநணத அளவயறணக ககநலச கநபணப, ரமநதயரமண, அரணநகயயற மறணறமண தணய , தடணடவநயரசகளண எடதணதநநணகளண . எனத கணவநண இனணனமண நரககளண ரகடணட எனரண ன அடதணத தனணபறதணதகயனணறநநண . எனத நநதணதனநரமண எனரணன அடதணதநநண. எனகணக எனத கணவரடனண வநழ பயடகணகவயலணரல. எனணரன பயநயதணத ரவகணகமணபட தநழரணமயடனண
ரகடணடகணககநளணகயரறனண. மபறய ரசநணதணத ரவததண நலண நநனண உயயரடனண இரகணகமநடணரடனண . வரதடணசரணகண ரகடணட தயனமமண ரகடணட எனரணன கதநலரணல கசயணகயனணறநநணகளண.
….25.
எனணரன தவறநன வநநணதரண தயயலண ரகடணட கஷணடபணபடதணதகயனணறனநண . இதறணக மனணப இஙணக பகநநண ககநடததணயரநணரதநமண. அவரகணக கட இரநணதநலண ரபநதமண எனணற இரககணயறநநணகளண. எனகணக எனத கணவநண ரதரவரய இலரண ல. இதறணக சநயயநன
நடவடகணரக எடகணகமணபட மயகவமண தநழரண மயடனண ரகடணடகணககநளணகயரறனண ………”.
29. So on perusing both Ex-X.1 and X.2 it reveals that after the marriage was held on 11.05.2014, nearly after 1-½ years on 10.10.2015 the deceased has given a first complaint regarding harassment. It was compromised and they were advised to live together amicably. Subsequently, after the celebration of the first birthday of her child on 11.03.2016, another complaint is given on next day on 12.03.2016 by the deceased, which is found in Ex-X.2 series. It would reveal that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with demand for things and valuable security by the accused-A1 and A2. Further, the accused-A1 used to come drunk and harass the deceased. In fact the accused has chosen to exhibit these documents in Ex-X.1 and X.2
during cross-examination of P.W.10. Therefore, it can be looked into to decide the case regarding previous complaint given by the deceased regarding the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the accused. Therefore, examining the above materials, the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and documents in Ex-X.1 and Ex-X.2 it clearly goes to establish that the deceased was persistently and continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accuesd-A1 and A2 in
….26.
connection with demanding things such as jewels and cash from the deceased. The accused-A1 being the husband of the deceased used to come drunk and was beating the deceased and caused cruelty and harassment. The above facts that the deceased was subjected to persistent and continuous cruelty and harassment is sufficient to prove that she was subjected to such kind of cruelty that is sufficient to drive her to commit suicide, without any other option or recourse. In spite of several compromise and conciliations made the accusedA1, husband of the deceased did not corrected himself, but, continue to harass the deceased which is sufficient enough to drive her to commit suicide. The fact that there was harassment is also corroborated by the RDO report in Ex-P.5 given by P.W.6.
30. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved that both the accused-A1 and A2 have committed the offence of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC.
31. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that once the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed cruelty, this Court can presume the accused have abetted the suicide of the deceased under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act reads as below;
….27.
113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. ––When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and 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, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
32. Thus, in order to attract the presumption under Section 113A, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased has committed suicide within the period of 7 years from the date of marriage and that her husband or relative had subjected her to cruelty.
33. The deceased was married to the accused-A1 on 11.05.2014. She had committed suicide and died on 16.05.2016 well within the period of 7 years form the date of marriage. The fact that the deceased has committed suicide is further proved from the medical evidence produced on the side of the prosecution. P.W.5, Dr.Gugan, who conducting autopsy and issued the autopsy report in Ex-P.2 has clearly given an opinion that the deceased has died due to asphyxia due to hanging. P.W.4/Tr.Arun and defence witnesses D.Ws. 1 and 2 would also deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Therefore,
….28.
the above evidence clearly prove that the deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage by committing suicide.
34. Further the relationship between the accused and the deceased is not disputed. The accused-A1 is the husband and the accused-A2 is the sister in law. In (2016) 12 SCC 759 (Satish Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka) it is held that;
“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..”
35. Therefore, the prosecution having proved that the deceased is a woman died within seven year of marriage by committing suicide, this Court may draw presumption that the accused have abetted the suicide by the deceased, provided that there are other attending circumstances.
36. It has to be considered whether the act of the accused was proximate in time to abet the suicide. It is not denied on the side of the prosecution that the accused-A2 is living separately. She was not residing with the deceased as on the date and time of occurrence. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-A2 used to visit the house of the deceased and caused harassment. But on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.05.2016 the deceased
….29.
was alone with the accused-A1 at her residence. Therefore, absence of the accused-A2 at the time of occurrence would show that her act of cruelty and harassment is not proximate and having directly link with abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
37. But the presence of the accused-A1 with the deceased at the time of occurrence is admitted and proved even by the defence witnesses. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused has chosen examine two witnesses D.W.1, Tr.Gopinath and D.W.2, Tmt.Kamatchi. Both of them reside in the first floor of the same building, in which the deceased was residing with the accused-A1 in the second floor. There evidence would no rebut the presumption. On the other hand, it would further fortify and confirm that there used to be dispute between the accused-A1 and the deceased. More over D.W.1 and D.W.2 are also contradictory to each other. D.W.1 would deposed that there used to be quarrel between accused-A1 and the deceased and he used to pacify it, that the deceased used to the frequently quarrel stating that she educated and that the accused-A1 is working in the Corporation garbage lorry and she does not like him coming near her. The evidence cannot be believe since, the deceased had went and lived with her husband several time after compromise. But, D.W.2 would deposed in contrary to the evidence of D.W.1.. She would state that the accused-A1 used to come drunk and at the time there used to be problem between them. D.W.2 has further deposed that on the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between the
….30.
accused-A1 and his wife. Later the quarrel became severe and that she went to the shop, but, by the time she could return, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, from the evidence of D.W.2 it is pertinent to note that on the date of occurrence, prior to the deceased committed suicide, there was a severe quarrel between the accused-A1 and the deceased. In the light of the other attending circumstances that the accused-A1 used to come drunkard and beat the deceased and has harassed her repeatedly, it is sufficient to prove that the positive done by the accused on the date of occurrence is sufficient enough to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The conduct of the accused along with the other attending fact and circumstances would prove his intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that taking in to consideration the other attending circumstances, this Court can safely draw a presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act, that the accused-A1, husband of the deceased, has abetted the suicide by the deceased.
38. As the presence of accused-A2, sister-in-law of the deceased, on the date and time of occurrence is not prove, the presumption cannot be drawn against the accused-A2.
39. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused-A1 and not proved against the accused-A2.
….31.
40. Therefore based on the above discussed facts and circumstances and evidence on record, this Court concludes the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-A1 under Section 498A and 306 IPC and the guilt of the accused-A2 under Section 498A IPC only and the point for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.
41. Result: In the result the accused-A1 is found guilty as charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and the accused-A2 is found guilty as charged under Section 498A IPC only. The accused-A2 is found not guilty under Section 306 IPC and acquitted for the charge under Section 306 IPC under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of May, 2022//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….32.
S.C. No.154/2017 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Raja and Anandhi )
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 31.05.2022 at 4.20 P.M.
42. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
A1 – கரறநதணபடணச தணணடரன தரரவணணடமண .
A2 – எனகணக எதவமண கதநயயநத . நநனண தபணப கசயணயவயலணரல .
43. 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 5.00 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 31st day of May, 2022.
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….33.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 154/2017 – DATED: 31.05.2022
AT 5.00 P.M.
44. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. This Courtconsidered the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case. The deceased was a young woman aged about 25 years. She started her marital life with fond hopes. All were tarnished by the egoistic and cruel mind of the accused. The value and virtue of a woman’s life is crushed at its inception itself. The accused have no regard for human value and life of this young woman. The acts of the accused would definitely knock the conscious of the society, if the accused are dealt with leniently. At best the mitigating circumstance may be that accused A1 and A2 may reform in the long run. But, A1 being the husband of the deceased has miserably failed to extend his love and affection and pushed the deceased to the heights of frustration. They may remorse for their ghastly act and there is also probability of their reformation in the long run. But, considering the grave nature and the impact on the society, a lenient view will not meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Court is inclined to impose the maximum sentence.
45. 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
….34.
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 is convicted under Section 498A IPC andaccordingly sentence to undergo THREE YEARS SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay a Fine of .5000/-, in default to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT₹ FOR THREE MONTHS under Section 498A IPC;
(iii) the period already undergone by the accused-A1 from 19.05.2016to 26.07.2016 shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.; The accused-A2 is released on anticipatory bail.
(iv) both the sentences imposed on the accused-A1 shall runconcurrently;
(v) Total fine .20,000/₹ -.
46. Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.: No case properties are produced and marked on the side of the prosecution. Hence, no orders is passed thereon.
….35.
47. Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: – Perused the oral and documentary evidence. P.W.1 the mother of the deceased has died pending trial. There is no material placed on record to show the other dependents of the deceased. Hence, no compensation order is passed.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of May, 2022//
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
List of Witnesses examined:
On the side of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 :: Tmt. Saraswathi (Mother of the deceased)
P.W.2 :: Tmt. Gunavathi (Aunt of the deceased)
P.W.3 :: Tr. Dhinakaran (Uncle of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Tr. Arun
P.W.5 :: Dr. Gugan (Post-Mortem Doctor)
P.W.6 :: Tr.Arankanathan (Personal Assistant-cum
district collector)
P.W.7 :: Tr. Vijay
P.W.8 :: Dr. Rajesh (A.R. Doctor)
P.W.9 :: Tr. Arulmani (Sub­Inspector of Police)
P.W.10 :: Tr. Muthuvelpandi (I.O.)
….36.

On the side of the accused:
D.W.1 :: Tr. Gopinath
D.W.2 :: Tmt. C. Kamatchi
List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution:
Exhibit No. Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 17.05.2016 P.W.4’s signature in the observation mahazar
Ex-P. 2 17.05.2016 Post­Mortem Report (PM. No.1055/16)
Ex-P. 3 06.06.2016 Toxicology Report (Tox.H. No. 1160/2016)
Ex-P. 4 17.05.2016 Requisition Letter from the Inspector of Police to the District Collector
Ex-P. 5 26.06.2016 RDO Report
Ex-P.6 17.05.2016 P.W.6’s signature in the observation mahazar
Ex-P.7 16.05.2016 Xerox copy of the Accident Register (Sl.No.4337811)
Ex-P.8 16.05.2016 Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P.9 16.05.2016 First Information Report (C 7266480)
Ex-P.10 17.05.2016 Observation Mahazar
Ex-P.11 17.05.2016 Rough sketch
….37.
Ex-P.12 19.05.2016 Alteration Report
Ex-P.13 01.11.2018 RDO Statement of witnesses
On the side of accused: NIL
Exhibit No. Date Particulars
Ex-X.1 10.10.2015 Complaint given by the deceased
Ex-X.2 10.10.2015 Case file in CSR No.151/2015
List of Material Objects Marked:
On the side of Prosecution: Nil
On the side of the Accused: Nil
Sd/- T.H.Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. // TRUE COPY //

Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….38.