Madras High Court
Selvakumar vs State. Rep. By The Assistant ... on 4 August, 2022
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2013
Selvakumar.
S/o.Radhakrishnan. ... Appellant/Accused No.1
/versus/
State. Rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
L & O,
R-8, Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.705 of 2008). ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records in S.C.No.414 of 2010 disposed by judgment dated 04.09.2013 on the file
of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Chennai and set aside
the same.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Nagarajan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate. (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the accused No.1 who was convicted for
offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years R.I.
and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, three months S.I.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant loved the deceased
Jayakumari and married her on 03.08.2003 against the wish of their parents. They
both lived together hardly for four months. On 22.12.2003, Jayakumari was forced
to leave the matrimonial home. On 30.05.2008 nearly about 4½ years after,
Jayakumari committed suicide. In the course of investigation, two incriminating
materials were collected (i). The complaint dated 03.04.2008 written by the
deceased Jayakumari addressed to Inspector of Police, Vadapalani Police station
(ii). Notes written by the deceased in her diary. They were marked as Ex.P.4 and
Ex.P.5 respectively.
3. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, marked 28 exhibits.
The dupatta used by the deceased to hang herself recovered and marked as M.O.1.
On the side of the accused persons, the photographs taken during their marriage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
were marked as Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2.
4. On completion of investigation, the appellant and his mother were
arrayed as accused, charge under Section 498(A) and 304(B) of I.P.C was framed.
5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence placed, acquitted
both the accused for offence under Section 304 (B) of I.P.C. However, for offence
under Section 498-A of I.P.C., A2 was acquitted, A1 was convicted and sentence
to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, 3 months S.I.
6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that,
except Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 there is no other incriminating evidence against the
appellant. The reading of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, does not disclose any cruelty either
mental or physical, to attract offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Admittedly, the
deceased and the appellant got separated on 22.12.2003, after 4½ years, the
deceased committed suicide. There is neither proximity of person or proximity of
time to attribute cruelty by the appellant as a cause for the deceased death. The
Learned Counsel also submitted that, while trial Court has rightly acquitted both
the accused for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., the same yardstick,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
reasoning and logic also applies for the charge under Section 498 A of I.P.C. The
statement recorded by RDO marked as Ex.P.12, does not disclose the ingredient to
punish the appellant for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C specifically when the
RDO report clearly indicates that, there was no evidence for dowry
harassment/cruelty.
7. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to prove that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial
Court is unsustainable.
8. The content of Ex.P.4 has to be read in as a whole and not in
piecemeal. The trial Court has erred in not appreciating the Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5
properly.
9. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the
respondent submitted that the cruelty faced by the deceased has been clearly
spoken by herself through the complaint given by her to Inspector of Police,
Vadapalani Police Station, which is marked as Ex.P.4. The authenticity of the
Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 been proved through Scientific experts. P.W.5 (Annamalai),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
who has prepared the admitted signature of the deceased with the hand writing
found in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
10. Referring to the content of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, the Learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the
trial Court has rightly concluded that the accused had deceived the deceased, by
false promise had caused mental cruelty to her by his conduct. The evidence of the
witnesses proves that though the deceased has left the matrimonial home in the
year 2003, the appellant/accused was in contact with the deceased frequently.
Taking her money on false promise and betraying her by breaching those promise.
The incident has been narrated in Ex.P.4 and those incidents are corroborated by
the evidence of other witnesses, who had spoken about the conduct of the accused.
11. This Court, after considering the rival submissions, finds that the
deceased was working in the Income Tax Department. The appellant is her relative
and a known person. They loved each other and got married on their own against
the wish of the respective parents. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, who had
spoken about the love marriage of her daughter and the breakdown of the
marriage. The accused had received money from the deceased on the promise that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
he has to go to Malaysia for job, he will earn money there and take the deceased to
Malaysia. Believing his words, she has given money to him but he has not taken
the deceased to Malaysia but returned back to India, after few months. This fact is
also reflected in Ex.P.4, the complaint written by the deceased. On 13.05.2008, the
accused has called the deceased and has demanded money. This has provoked the
deceased to committ suicide. Ex.P.1 is the complaint given by P.W.1, the mother of
the deceased. In the complaint, she has stated that, on 13.05.2008 at about 3.30
p.m., the deceased returned home early and went to the room and locked. She
heard her daughter arguing over phone to someone. Thereafter there was no
movement for two hours, suspecting something sinister, the door was broke open
and she found the deceased dead hanging inside the room,
12. To corroborate the fact that, the deceased had her last
conversation with the appellant, the police has collected the call details and marked
the call details as Ex.P.22. From Ex.P.4, it is clearly proved that the deceased has
committed suicide on being cheated by the appellant herein. The subject mentioned
in the letter marked as Ex.P.4 reads as below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
“Cheated by false promise and forced to withdraw
the complaint. Causing torture till date by the husband and
his family members”
13. Ex.P.5, though a short letter of seven lines in Tamil language
again it refers to the appellant, his mother, his brother and sister are the cause for
her death.
14. The trial Court, after proper appreciation of the material placed,
on considering the nature of the charge against the accused persons, has rightly
acquitted the appellant and his mother for offence under Section 304-(B) of I.P.C
and convicted this appellant for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Hence, the
mental cruelty meted out by the deceased at the hand of the appellant even after
she left the matrimonial home had continued till few hours before her death.
Hence, this Court finds no error in the appreciation of the evidence by the trial
Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
04.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking Order
bsm
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.659 of 2013
bsm
To,
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, L & O, R-8, Vadapalani Police Station,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2013
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
