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

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME