Madras High Court
Pazhaniammal vs The State Rep. By on 1 September, 2021
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
Pazhaniammal .. Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Pudupettai Police Station
Cuddalore
Cr.No.228/2008 .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 10.12.2018 made in S.C.No.220 of 2016 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.220 of 2016.
2. The prosecution story runs thus :
2.1. The deceased Datchayani was married to one Ramesh and was
living in her matrimonial home in MGR Nagar, Panapakkam village. Her
parents-in-law viz., Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) and Krishnaveni (P.W.2) were
also living in the same house. Ramesh used to go for work and would
return very late in the evening. Datchayani and Ramesh were childless.
2.2. Iyyanar (A1) and his wife Pazhaniammal (A2) were living in the
opposite house of Datchayani in the same village. Since Datchayani was
very friendly with everyone in the neighbourhood, her friendliness was
misinterpreted by Pazhaniammal (A2), who suspected that Iyyanar (A1) was
having an affair with Datchayani and very frequently, she used to pick up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
quarrels with Datchayani. On account of this, Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) took
Datchayani to Puducherry, where he was employed and in the last week of
July 2008, he brought Datchayani back to Panapakkam village, in
connection with the local temple festivities.
2.3. It is alleged that on 31.07.2008, around 6.00 a.m., a quarrel
ensued between Datchayani and Pazhaniammal (A2) and as a sequel,
Datchayani went inside her house, doused herself with kerosene and
committed self-immolation. She was immediately rushed to the
Government Hospital, Panruti by Ramesh, where, she was examined by
Dr.Nagaraj (P.W.5) at 07.20 a.m. on 31.07.2008.
2.4. In the evidence of Dr.Nagaraj (P.W.5) as well in the copy of the
Accident Register (Ex.P3), it is stated as follows :
"Brought by : Husband (Ramesh)
History of the patient : Kerosene self burn at 06.00 a.m. Today at her
home. On examination, conscious."
Since Datchayani was suffering from extensive burns, she was referred to
the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, for better treatment and from there,
she was shifted to the JIPMER hospital, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
2.5. At the request of the police, Mohammed Farook (P.W.7), Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry, went to the JIPMER hospital at 02.30 p.m. on
01.08.2008 and recorded the dying declaration of Datchayani, which was
marked as Ex.P5.
2.6. In the said dying declaration (Ex.P5), Datchayani has stated that
Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2) picked up a quarrel with her and
thereafter, while she was washing vessels, they came and poured kerosene
on her and set fire to her. Datchayani succumbed to the injuries on
05.08.2008 at 02.30 a.m. in the JIPMER hospital.
2.7. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1)
to Thairiyasamy (P.W.8), Sub Inspector of Police, a case in Pudupet
P.S.Crime No.228 of 2008 was registered on 05.08.2008 at 08.15 a.m. under
Section 174 Cr.P.C.
2.8. Investigation of the case was taken over by Kalimullah Sha
(P.W.9), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P8) and rough sketch (Ex.P9). From
the place of occurrence, the I.O. (P.W.9) seized an old 5 ltr. plastic can under
the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P10). He conducted inquest over the body of
Datchayani and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P7.
2.9. Autopsy on the body of Datchayani was performed by
Dr.Mukundan (P.W.6), who in his evidence as well in the post-mortem
certificate (Ex.P4), has stated as follows :
"The deceased would appear to have died of septic complications of
burns."
2.10. After examining some witnesses, the I.O. (P.W.9) altered the
case from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC vide alteration
report (Ex.P11) dated 21.08.2008. After examining witnesses and collecting
various reports, including the dying declaration (Ex.P5), the I.O. (P.W.9)
completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.15 of 2016
on 31.08.2016 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, for the
offence under Section 306 IPC against Iyyanar (A1) and his wife
Pazhaniammal (A2).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
2.11. When the committal Magistrate issued process to Iyyanar (A1)
and Pazhaniammal (A2), it came to the notice of the Magistrate that Iyyanar
(A1) had died four years prior to 31.08.2016, despite which, the police
appear to have filed the final report against Iyyanar (A1) also.
2.12. Be that as it may, on the appearance of Pazhaniammal (A2), the
provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was
committed to the Court of Session, Cuddalore in S.C.No.220 of 2016 and
was made over to the Mahila Court, Cuddalore, for trial.
2.13. The trial Court ploughed through the records and framed two
charges viz., one under Section 306 IPC and the other under Section 302
IPC against Pazhaniammal (A2). When questioned, Pazhaniammal (A2)
pleaded “not guilty”.
2.14. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and
marked 11 exhibits. When Pazhaniammal (A2) was questioned under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against
her, she denied the same. No witness was examined on the side of
Pazhaniammal (A2) nor any document marked.
2.15. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 10.12.2018, in
S.C.No.220 of 2016, acquitted Pazhaniammal (A2) of the offence under
Section 306 IPC, but, convicted her of the offence under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence Pazhaniammal (A2) has
preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for Pazhaniammal (A2)
and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
4. The short point that falls for consideration is, whether the
conviction and sentence of Pazhaniammal (A2) for the offence under
Section 302 IPC can be sustained.
5. Pertinent it is to state here that the State has not challenged the
acquittal of Pazhaniammal (A2) of the offence under Section 306 IPC.
6. Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) and Krishnaveni (P.W.2), in their evidence,
have stated that Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2) used to frequently
harass their daughter-in-law Datchayani by making lewd comments about
her morality; therefore, they took Datchayani to Puducherry, where
Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) was employed; in the last week of July 2008,
Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) brought Datchayani back to the village, in
connection with the local temple festival; while that being so, on
31.07.2008, Datchayani committed self-immolation in their house, after she
had a quarrel with Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
7. Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) and Krishnaveni (P.W.2) have not stated
that it was Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2) duo, who had set fire to
Datchayani.
8. From the evidence of Dr.Nagaraj (P.W.5) and from the copy of the
accident register (Ex.P3), it is evident that Datchayani was taken to the
Government Hospital, Panruti, by Ramesh. At the time of admission in the
hospital, they clearly stated that Datchayani had committed self-immolation.
Strangely, Ramesh was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best
known to them.
9. Now, coming to the dying declaration (Ex.P5) that was recorded on
01.08.2008, it is true that Datchayani has implicated her neighbours viz.,
Iyyanar (A1) and Pazhaniammal (A2). She has also stated in the dying
declaration (Ex.P5) that this incident is known to her husband (Ramesh),
one Subramani, Jayakodi and driver Siva.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
10. Strangely, except Jayakodi (P.W.3), the other persons named by
Datchayani in the dying declaration (Ex.P5), were not examined. Jayakodi
(P.W.3), in her evidence, has clearly stated that after Datchayani had a
quarrel with Pazhaniammal (A2), she (Datchayani) went inside her house
and set fire to herself and thereafter, she (Jayakodi-P.W.3) accompanied her
(Datchayani) to the hospital; she (Jayakodi-P.W.3) has not stated that it was
the accused, who has set fire to Datchayani.
11. Though corroboration is not always required for sustaining a
dying declaration, yet, when there are other collateral evidences to dispel
the veracity of the dying declaration, the dying declaration need not be
accepted as a gospel truth. Admittedly, Datchayani was alive from
31.07.2008 to 05.08.2008. In such view of the matter, we are afraid that we
cannot confirm the conviction and sentence of Pazhaniammal (A2) for the
offence under Section 302 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
12. Coming to the charge under Section 306 IPC, this is not a case
where presumptions under Section 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act,
1872, could be invoked. Even according to the testimonies of
Kaliyaperumal (P.W.1) and Krishnaveni (P.W.2), Pazhaniammal (A2) used
to connect her husband Iyyanar (A1) with Datchayani and quarrelled with
her. This, by itself, is not enough for mulcting criminal liability on
Pazhaniammal (A2), for the offence of abetment of suicide without anything
more. Therefore, the evidence on record is insufficient to alter the
conviction to Section 306 IPC.
In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.220 of 2016, is set aside.
Pazhaniammal (A2) is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention
is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by
her shall be refunded.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.N.M., J.]
01.09.2021
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gya
To
1.The Sessions Judge
Mahila Court, Cuddalore
2.The Inspector of Police
Pudupettai Police Station
Cuddalore
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
CRL.A.No.23 of 2019
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
