Madras High Court

R.Ananth vs State By on 5 August, 2021

                                                                             Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 Dated : 05.08.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                             Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

                  Crl.A.No.318 of 2019:

                  1.R.Ananth
                  2.R.Yasoda                                               ... Appellants
                                                       Versus

                  State by
                  The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                  Sembium Range, Chennai.
                  (Crime No.1592 of 2014)
                  (Sembium Police Station),
                  Chennai City.                                            ... Respondents

Crl.A.No.604 of 2019:

                  Dharmalingam                                             ... Appellant
                                                   Versus
                  State rep by,
                  1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                    Sembayam Range, Chennai.

                  2.Anand
                  3.Ramachandran
                  4.Yesodha                                                ... Respondents

Prayer in both the Appeals:Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction imposed in Judgement dated 30.05.2019 made in S.C.NO.71 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

Crl.A.No.318 of 2019:

                            For Appellants    :      Mr.V.Karthic, Senior Counsel,
                                                     for Mr.E.J.Ayyappan.

                            For Respondent    :      Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                     Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
                  Crl.A.No.604 of 2019:

                            For Appellant     :      Ms.D.Prasanna

                            For Respondents :        Mr.S.Sugendran, (for R1)
                                                     Government Advocate [Crl. Side]

                                              :      Mr.V.Karthic, Senior Counsel,
                                                     for Mr.E.J.Ayyappan. (for R2 & R4)

                                               COMMON JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2019 is filed by the appellants, who are

the accused in S.C.No.21 of 2016. The appellant in Crl.A.No.604 of 2019 is

the de-facto complainant.

2.For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties are mentioned

as arrayed in the Sessions case.

3.The respondent/police originally registered the case under Section

174(3) of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.1592 of 2014, against the accused A1, A2, A3.

After inquest and investigation, the offences were altered into 498(A), 304(B) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

of IPC., or in alternative of Section 306 of IPC. After investigation, the

investigation officer laid a charge sheet before the learned V Metropolitan

Magistrate, Chennai. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, taken the charge

sheet on file in PRC.No.109 of 2015. After completing the formalities, since

the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it has committed the

case to the learned Principal Session Judge. The learned Principal Session

Judge has taken the case on file in S.C.No.71 of 2016 and made it over to the

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, for disposal of the case. The learned

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, on receipt of the records and after completing

the formalities, framed the first charge against A1 & A3 for the offence under

Section 498(A) of IPC., and the second charge against the accused A1, and A3,

for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. After framing charges and

completing the formalities, the Trial Court altered the second charge of Section

304(B) of IPC., or in alternate Section 306 of IPC.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the

prosecution, during trial, 10 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.10 and

17 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, besides one material object

was marked as MO.1. After completing the examination of prosecution

witnesses, incriminating circumstances were culled out from the evidence of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused, they denied the same

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence one witness was

examined as DW.1 and two documents were marked as Ex.D1 & D2.

5.On completion of trial and conclusion of the arguments advanced on

either side, considering the oral and documentary evidence and other materials

placed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court not found the accused guilty for

the offence under Section 304(B) and 306 of IPC., and found A1 to A3 guilty

of the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC., and sentenced them to undergo

two years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default,

to undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment for the offence

under Section 498(A) of IPC., and acquitted them for the offence under Section

304(B) or in alternate under Section 306 of IPC., During the pendency of trial,

the accused/A2 died and the charge against him got abated.

6.Now challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence passed

by the Trial Court against A1 to A3, they have filed Criminal Appeal No.318 of

2019. Challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section

304(B) or alternatively 306 of IPC., and also lesser punishment of sentence of

imprisonment imposed against the appellants/accused A1 & A3 for the offence

under Section 498(A), the de-facto complainant has filed the Criminal Appeal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis No.604 of 2019, before this Court.

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

7.Since both the appeals are arising out of the same Judgment, both

appeals are heard together and decided by this Common Judgment.

8.The learned counsel for the accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 2019

would submit that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Though the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted

the accused for offence under Section 304(B) or alternatively 306 of IPC, the

Trial Court erroneously found that the accused committed the offence under

Section 498(A) of IPC., Further, he would submit that there is no direct

evidence to show that the accused demanded dowry either from the deceased

or from the parents or from the relatives of the deceased. Further, he would

submit that the prosecution failed to establish that soon before the death, either

the accused or the relatives induced the victim to commit suicide, therefore, the

Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted them for the offence

under Section 304(B) or in alternate of Section 306 of IPC., Even there is no

proof to show the demand of dowry and the accused caused cruelty on the

deceased and without any valid reasons or without any substantial materials,

only on the basis of assumption and sympathy ground, the Trial Court

convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC., which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis warrants interference by this Court. Further, he would submit that the marriage

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

between the deceased and the first accused/A1 was held on 12.11.2010. The

deceased gave birth to a male child on 17.03.2013. As per the prosecution

case, the deceased/Sobana committed suicide on 13.07.2014 by hanging

herself on the ground of dowry demand. But the Trial Court disbelieved the

demand of dowry by rejecting the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. Even

the RDO in his enquiry report clearly falsified the offence of dowry demand

and the RDO has given the report stating that there was no provocation to the

deceased for committing suicide. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 have gradually

improved their case in the oral testimony, but there is no such allegations

existing in Ex's.P1, P2 and P3. The accused had arranged ear boring ceremony

of the child on 08.06.2014, thereupon the deceased was staying in the house of

PW1, PW2 & PW.3, for a period of one month. She came there before the

alleged occurrence taken place. Further, her child was not well from

12.07.2014 and thus, the accused was not in a position to travel to Pondicherry

to attend the function arranged by the Sister of PW.2. Since the accused did

not attend the function arranged by the Sister of PW.2 the deceased committed

suicide and it is not due to demand of dowry or not due to harassment. Even

PW.4 has deposed that the deceased and A1 were living happily and no other

independent evidence was let in to prove any quarrel or harassment allegedly

caused by the accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

9.There are apparent variations and improvements made by PW.1, PW.2

and PW.3. Ex.P15 as well as the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 would falsify the

prosecution version. The deceased committed suicide on 13.07.2014 and the

postmortem was conducted only on 15.07.2014. Therefore, the report of

postmortem cannot be fully relied on. The child was a premature baby, at the

time of alleged occurrence. In fact, she was suffering from fever, as could be

seen from the deposition of PW.1 and Ex.D2. The situation was not conducive

for the appellant and the deceased to travel long distance ignoring the ten

months old baby. The deceased failed to understand the situation and taken a

foolish decision to commit suicide, for which the accused cannot be made

responsible. The accused did not commit any offence under Section 304(B) as

well as 498(A) of IPC., and there is no injury found on the body of the

deceased, when the investigating officer taken the body from the scene of

occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case.

The Trial Court rightly appreciated that there is no demand of dowry and also

abetement and rightly acquitted the accused for the offence under Section

304(B) or alternatively Section 306 of IPC., The Trial Court not believed the

evidence of the prosecution for that offence, but however, erroneously

convicted the accused for the offence 498(A), without any reason. Therefore,

the Judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal filed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the de-facto complainant has to be dismissed.

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

10.The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant/appellant in

Crl.A.No.604 of 2019 would submit that the deceased gave birth to a male

baby out of their wedlock and an ear boring ceremony conducted on

08.06.2014. Since the parents of the deceased not provided gifts and jewels to

the kid or the gifts were not up to the satisfaction of the accused, the accused

scolded the deceased and even they did not allow the deceased to go and

participate in the function arranged by the sister of PW.1. The evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3 clearly prove that from the date of marriage, the accused

demanded dowry and also money, even, at the time of delivery also demanded

certain things for the baby of the accused. But the things provided by the

parents of the deceased is not satisfactory to the accused and they scolded her.

Therefore, the accused provocated the deceased, induced her and abetted her to

commit suicide. They harassed her physically and mentally and even they did

not allow the deceased to talk to her parents and relatives. The first accused

has not taken the deceased to the relatives premarital function to Pondicherry.

The deceased therefore committed suicide and the accused only abetted her to

commit suicide. Though the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence for the

offence under Section 498(A), however, acquitted the accused for the offence

under Sections 304(B) and 306 of IPC., There are sufficient materials to prove https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the charges for the offence under Section 304(B) alternatively, Section 306 of

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

IPC., and the Trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused for the above said

offence. Even though the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence

under Section 498(A) it imposed sentence only for two years and therefore,

aggrieved against such Judgment of the Trial Court, the de-facto complainant

filed the present appeal before this Court. The prosecution has proved its case

with enough materials placed before the Trial Court, to prove both the charges.

The Trial Court failed to appreciate it properly. There is perversity in the

finding of the Trial Court for the offences under Section 304(B) alternatively

306 of IPC., and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt. However the Trial Court has not found guilty of the accused for the

offence under Section 304(B) alternatively 306 of IPC., on the ground that

those charges are not sufficiently proved by the prosecution and the material

placed are not sufficient and hence, the benefit of the doubt has to be extended

to the accused. Therefore, the Crl.A.No.318 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed.

11.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

12.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide

due to the harassment and cruelty caused by the accused by demanding dowry

from her parents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

13.Since this Court is an Appellate Court, a final Court of fact finding, it

has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and give independent finding from the

materials placed before this Court. Accordingly, this Court carefully perused

the entire materials and the Judgment of the Trial Court.

14.The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offence

under Sections 498(A), 304(B) or alternatively 306 of IPC. In order to

substantiate, the above charges on the side of the prosecution, totally 10

witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked, besides one material

object was marked. Out of the ten witnesses, PW.1 to PW.4 are close relatives

viz., PW.1 is the father of the deceased, PW.2 is the mother of the deceased,

PW.3 is the elder brother of the deceased. PW.1 to PW.3, the brother and

parents of the deceased have spoken about the marriage and other jewels and

articles provided to the deceased for her marriage. They are no eye witnesses to

the occurrence. They have stated that prior to the occurrence, ear boring

ceremony was conducted to the son of the deceased and at the time, they

provided jewels and articles and certain things to the deceased when the child

was taken to matrimonial house. Subsequently, they heard that the deceased

committed suicide and they have stated that the accused demanded certain

things and they are also not satisfied with the performance of PW.1, PW.2 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PW.3, during the ceremony of the son of the deceased and thus dis-satisfied

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

and the same would raise doubts.

15.The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 clearly stated that prior to the

occurrence, the deceased telephoned and informed that A1 quarreled with her

and also beaten her and stated that money and Jewels provided for the ear

borings ceremony are not sufficient and she should not participate in the

function of the relative of PW.1 and therefore, she committed suicide. Though

no independent evidence was examined to prove the demand of dowry and

there is no material to show that soon before the deceased committed suicide,

there was no demand of dowry and abetment, the Trial Court extended the

benefit of doubts in favour of the accused and that the prosecution has not

proved the charge under Section 304(B) alternatively 306 of IPC., Therefore,

the accused was acquitted. However, from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and

also the postmortem report of the Doctor and RDO enquiry report, it is clearly

proved that the accused caused physical and mental cruelty to the deceased.

Therefore, he was convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.,

Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the appeal in Crl.A.No.318 of

2019 filed by the accused and it is liable to be dismissed.

16.As far as the Crl.A.No.604 of 2019 filed by PW.1 is concerned, since https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis there is no sufficient materials to prove the charge under Section 304(B)

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

alternatively 306 of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt, there is no reason to

interfere with the finding of the acquittal made by the Trial Court for the

offence under Section 304(B) alternatively, 306 of IPC.,

17.It is well settled proposition of law that while interfering with the

order of the acquittal made by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court must assign

reason for interference with the findings of the Trial Court and to show how

the judgment of the trial court is perverse. If two views possible, the benefits of

doubt would have to be extended to the accused. Unless there are compelling

circumstances, an Appellate Court should not interfere with the order of

acquittal, when two views are possible, the appellate Court cannot substitute

other view. The Trial Court has recorded the order of acquittal on appreciation

of evidence, hence, the interference of the Appellate Court is to be restricted. A

reading of the entire materials produced by the prosecution before the Trial

Court, especially the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 shows that the Trial Court

found that the prosecution has not proved the charge for the offence under

Section 304(B) alternatively Section 306 beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.This Court does not find any compelling circumstances to interfere

with the finding and the acquittal made by the Trial Court for the offence under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 304(B) alternatively 306 of IPC., but, however, this Court finds that

Crl.A.Nos.318 & 604 of 2019

there are sufficient materials available and the prosecution also proved the

charge for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC., against the accused.

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 have categorically stated that there was a quarrel

between the deceased and the appellants on the ground that the Jewels and

money provided by the parents of the deceased was not sufficient and the

articles provided does not meet out the expectations of the accused and

therefore they caused cruelty to the deceased. Soon before the deceased

committed suicide, there was no demand of dowry or abetment to commit

suicide and it was not proved, however, cruelty caused by the accused to the

deceased was proved by the prosecution. Though the Trial Court found the

accused guilty of the offence under Section 498(A), it imposed sentence for