Sures Mba Advt: Great order upholding the principles of law defined in 113B evidence act.THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.A.No.424 of 2012 section 498a

[12/12, 14:13] Sekarreporter: [12/12, 14:12] Sures Mba Advt: Great order upholding the principles of law defined in 113B evidence act.

Appreciate.
[12/12, 14:13] Sekarreporter: 👍
[12/12, 14:13] Sekarreporter: Crl.A.No.424 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.A.No.424 of 2012

1. Sakthi
2. Muthuraj
3. Neela .. Appellants/Accused
   No.1 to 3
   Vs.
   State represented by
   The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
   Villivakkam Range, Chennai,
   V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station,
   Chennai. .. Respondent/Complainant
   Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., to set aside
   the judgment and order dated 12.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.247 of
   2010 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Neethimandram),
   Chennai.
   For Appellants : Mr.K.Doraisamy
   Senior Counsel
   for M/s.Muthumani Doraisami
   For Respondent : Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal
   Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
   1/16 http://www.judis.nic.in
   [12/12, 14:14] Sekarreporter: Crl.A.No.424 of 2012
4. On 01.09.2006, when Mahalakshmi (PW7) came to see her
   daughter Kalpana, she was told that Kalpana wants to get separated
   from the joint family and at that time, a quarrel has ensued, in
   which, both sides have abused each other. Muthuraj (A2) and Neela
   (A3) appear to have demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for buying
   household articles for establishing a separate family. This cannot be
   construed as demand of dowry.
5. The evidence on record shows that Kalpana was basically a
   sensitive person and the quarrel that ensued on 01.09.2006 was
   working in her mind and had prompted her to commit suicide. The
   family of Kalpana started improving their allegations from time to
   time and had approached the Human Rights Commission and
   advocates to build up a case of murder, against the accused.
6. Mahalakshmi (PW7) has stated that she had found an injury
   in the right hand of Kalpana and that Kalpana told her (PW7) that she
   was beaten by her (Kalpana’s) husband with an iron rod.
7. This allegation is not found anywhere either in her
   statement to the Executive Magistrate (PW10) or to the police. The
   13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in
   [12/12, 14:14] Sekarreporter: Crl.A.No.424 of 2012
   postmortem report (Ex-P7) also does not disclose the existence of
   the injury in the right hand of Kalpana.
8. In such perspective of the matter, this Court is of the view
   that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges albeit the
   presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
   In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the
   judgment and order dated 12.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.247 of 2010
   on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai.
   As a sequel, Sakthi (A1), Muthuraj (A2) and Neela (A3) are acquitted
   of all charges. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall
   stand discharged. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded.
   20.11.2019
   Index: Yes/No
   nsd
   14/16 http://www.judis.nic.in