Madras High Court
Manivannan … vs The State Rep. By The on 7 July, 2022
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
Manivannan … Appellant
Versus
1. The State rep. by the
Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Virugambakkam Range,
Chennai – 92.
2. Ramachandiran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 r/w 401 (5) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in S.C.No.424 of 2011 on the file of the learned Mahila
Sessions Judge, Chennai and examine the correctness, legality and
property of the findings acquittal for all charges under Sections 498(a),
304(b) and 306 of I.P.C and revise the same.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R1
: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by P.W.1, the father of the deceased girl,
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated
29.03.2012 in S.C.No.424 of 2011, in and by which, the
respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences charged under Sections
498-A, 304-B or in the alternative of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. P.W.1's daughter and the second respondent/accused got married
on 28.05.2009 and P.W.1 had given jewels, house hold articles etc., in
connection with the marriage. On 22.11.2009, it is alleged that on account
of a domestic quarrel, P.W.1's daughter came to their house and thereafter,
on the next day, she returned to her house. However, since she did not
pick up the phone calls, they got suspicious and they went to the house
along with P.W.6, who is the wife of the house owner. They came to the
first floor and they tried to open the door and after the door got opened,
they saw the daughter of P.W.1 hanging in her bed room with her dupatta.
She also left suicide note stating that nobody is the reason for her suicide
and that she does not want to live in this world any more. P.W.1,
therefore, lodged a complaint in Ex.P-1 stating that even before the death
of her daughter, the second respondent/accused used to torture her by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
coming home in an inebriated condition and beating her and had also
caused burn injuries to her with cigarettes and also tortured her to bring
Rs.20,00,000/- from her family for his business. On the strength of the
same, a case in Crime No.1196 of 2009 was initially registered under the
provisions of Section 174 of Cr.P.C., which was later altered and taken up
for investigation by P.W.11 and after completion of investigation, he laid a
Final Report, proposing the accused guilty of the offences.
3. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.81 of 2011 by the learned
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and after the
appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies under Section 207 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate committed the case
to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, upon which, the case is
taken up on file as S.C.No.424 of 2011. After considering the material
records of the case, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 498A
and 304B or in the alternative Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The
accused denied the charges and stood trial. To bring home the guilt of the
charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-
15 and produced the rose colour dupatta, used by the deceased for hanging,
as M.O.1. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the suicide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
note written by the deceased was marked as Ex.D-1. Thereafter, upon
questioning about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances
on record, the accused denied the same. Thereafter, no evidence was let in
on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the prosecution and the learned
Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 29.03.2012 acquitted the
accused as against which the present appeal is filed by P.W.1, father of the
deceased.
4. Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, would submit that, in this case, from the evidence of P.Ws.1
to 3 on record, it is clear that there was dowry demand on behalf of the
accused. The said fact was categorically stated in the earliest point of time
i.e., in Ex.P-1 itself and it may be clear that P.Ws.1 and 2 and the family
members have given the clear and categorical version in the R.D.O enquiry
itself. As a matter of fact, the R.D.O had also concluded that the prima
facie evidence points out the demand of dowry and the investigation is
conducted by the Police in the matter. Thereafter, after clear-cut
investigation and examination of the witnesses, the Police had filed a Final
Report proposing the accused as guilty. Therefore, when there is clear-cut
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
evidence on record, the Trial Court, ought to have convicted the accused
for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. There was no other reason for the deceased wife to commit
suicide. This is a case of suicide within a period of seven years of
marriage and therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 also comes into play. The accused has not given any
plausible explanation to rebut the presumption and therefore, considering
the evidence on record, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the
accused for both the offences under Sections 498A as well as 304B of the
Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact, the suicide note is denied by the
P.W.1 and when the P.W.1 denied the signature and hand writing of his
daughter and when the signature has not been verified by the Investigating
Officer and the suicide note not having been produced on behalf of the
prosecution, the same should not have been relied upon or taken into
consideration, as the very veracity of the suicide note itself is doubtful.
Therefore, he would pray that the appeal should be allowed and the
accused should be punished with maximum punishment.
6. Per contra, Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
respondent/accused would submit that on a perusal of the suicide note, it is
clear that the deceased wife has stated the reason that she was dejected in
life and therefore taking the extreme step. P.W.1 himself had found the
suicide note and the suicide note was mentioned in the original complaint,
Ex.P-1 itself. This apart, the suicide note is also clearly mentioned in the
earliest point of time in the R.D.O report also in which the veracity of the
suicide note was not doubted. Therefore, when the deceased herself has
stated that nobody is responsible for her death and that she is taking the
extreme decision because she does not want to live further in this world
and coupled with the other averments in the suicide note, it would
demonstrate that she was depressed and just because they lost the victim to
suicide, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 made a complaint with some allegations.
7. He would submit that until the death of the deceased, there was no
Police complaint, given the seriousness of allegations of causing burn
injuries, coming in an inebriated condition and beating the deceased wife
daily, demanding dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, he would submit
that in this case, the Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and
has acquitted the accused and therefore, there is a presumption of double
innocence because the Trial Court has acquitted and there is nothing in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
case so as to upturn the finding of the acquittal into one of guilt.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of this case. As far as the charge under
Section 304B or in the alternative Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the deceased herself had left a suicide note. A clear perusal of
the suicide note, she had not mentioned any demand of dowry or any
intention or harassment on the part of the accused which had driven her to
take this extreme step. The learned Counsel for the appellant would
submit that the suicide note is not proved in the manner known to law and
the signature is denied.
9. It is this piece of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 makes their evidence
doubtful. At the earliest point of time, in the complaint itself, P.W.1, i.e.,
the father of the deceased, himself has stated, categorically, as follows:-
“ //// fjitjpwe;J ghu;j;j nghJ
vd; kfs; ghDkjp bgl;U:k;kpd;
Jg;gl;lhthy; ngdpy; Jhf;Fg;nghl;L
bjh';fpf; bfhz;oUj;jJ vd; kfs;
jdifg;gl vd; rht[f;F ahUk;
fhuzkpy;iy vd;W fojk; vGjp
bgl;U:k;kpy; cs;s fk;gpa{l;lu; kPJ
itj;jpUe;jhu;/ vdnt vd; kfspy;
gpnujj;jpd; kPJ eltof;if vLj;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
ey;ylf;fk; bra;a gpnujj;ij vd;dplk;
xg;gilf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;///”
10. Again, in the R.D.O enquiry, it is mentioned as follows:-
“ rk;gt ehshd 23/11/2009 md;W kjpak;
,we;J nghd ghDkjpapd; je;ij
tPl;ow;F te;J ghh;j;jjpy;. JpUkjp
ghDkjp Jhf;Fg;nghl;Lf; bfhz;L
,we;Jtpl;lhu; vd bjuptpj;jjd;ngupy;
tPl;L chpikahsuhd g";rhaj;jju;fspy;
xUtu; brd;W ghu;j;jhu; vd;Wk;. gpd;dh;
nghyP!py; jfty; bjuptpj;jjhft[k;.
,we;Jnghd jpUkjp ghDkjpapd;
,wg;g[f;F tujl;rid bfhLik vJt[k;
,Ug;gjhf g";rhaj;jhuh;fSf;F
bjupatpy;iybad;W thf;FK:yj;jpy;
bjuptpj;J cs;shu;fs;/
nkYk;. fhy";brd;w jpUkjp
ghDkjp ifg;gl. VdJ rhtpw;F ahUk;
fhuzkpy;iy vd vGjpa fojk; fhty;
Jiwapduhy; ifg;gw;wgl;L
tprhuizapd;nghJ xg;gilf;fg;gl;lJ/
tprhuiz Koe;jgpd; nkw;go foj efy;
nfhg;gpy; itf;fg;gl;L mry; fojk;
fhty;Jiwaplk; nru;ff ; g;gl;lJ/”
Therefore, the veracity of the said suicide note cannot be doubted.
11. However, P.W.1, while deposing before the Court, had deposed
as follows:-
“m/rh/M/1 g[fhupy; vd; kfs;
tPl;oy; blyptpc&d; nky; jw;bfhiy
Fwpg;g[ ,Ue;jjhf g[fhupy;
brhy;ypa[s;nsdh vd;why; mJ nghd;W
xU fojj;ij fhz;gpj;j nghyPrhu;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
fhz;gpj;J nfl;l nghJ mJ vd; kfs;
ifbaGj;J vd;W brhy;yptpl;nld;/
m/rh/M/4y; cs;s ifbaGj;J
vd;DilaJ jhd;/ M/rh/M/ vd;
ifahy; vGjpf;bfhLj;jJ jhd;/ me;j
g[fhupy; jw;bfhiy Fwpg;g[ gw;wp
Fwpg;gpl;L mjd; mog;gilapy; cily
nfl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;why; fhty; Jiwapy;
mt;thW vGjr;brhd;dhu;fs; ehDk;
vGjpndd;////”
Therefore, it is only this factor which makes the evidence of P.W.1
and in the same manner, P.W.2, unbelievable.
12. Thus, when P.W.6, before the Court, being the independent
witness examined in this case and the other Panchayatdars, who were
present even during the R.D.O enquiry, had mentioned that there seems to
be no case of any dowry demand and they had seen the deceased and the
accused living together without any quarrel, like any other husband and
wife. It is, therefore, in the absence of any allegation either by way of
complaint to any Police Station or even by way of oral information to any
third party/relative, with regard to such serious allegation of causing
injuries, dowry demand etc., the same being made only after the death by
suicide, raises an iota of doubt. Therefore, on a cumulative reading and
appreciation, the evidence on record is not inspiring this Court, so as to
punish the accused. The finding of the Trial Court that the dowry demand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
is not proved, cannot be interfered with, even though the finding of the
Trial Court, that it is not directly in connection with the marriage, is
acceptable to this Court. But, however, the very dowry demand appears to
be doubtful in this case because of the following reasons:-
(i) There was no allegation prior to the commission of suicide;
(ii) P.W.1, even though stated that Rs.20,00,000/- was demanded,
but mentioned in the complaint that the said amount is generally for
business purposes and P.W.2 further stated that the purpose was for the
business of erecting telephone towers. The said purpose ostensibly cannot
be correct, as it is only the telephone companies who erect towers.
13. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, there is no ample
evidence so as to upturn the finding of acquittal into one of guilt and
finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
07.07.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
grs
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
The Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.A.No.497 of 2019
07.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
