Madras High Court
Kaliyamoorthy vs The State on 18 October, 2022
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
Dated : 18.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl. A. (MD)No.313 of 2019
Kaliyamoorthy .. Petitioner/P.W.2
Vs.
1.The State, rep by its
Inspector of Police,
Tirupanandal Police Station,
Tanjore District. .. Respondent/Complainant
2.Jegadeesan
3.Neelamegam
4.Annapattu .. Respondents/Accused
Appeal filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the order of the acquittal in S.C.No.76 of 2010 dated 07.12.2010
passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanjavur.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
For Appellant : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 to R4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the brother of the deceased
(P.W.2) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, made in S.C.No.76 of 2010, dated
07.12.2010, acquitting the accused persons from the charge under Section
302 of IPC insofar as A3 and under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC insofar as A1
and A2.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to A1
and A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. The deceased gave birth to a child and
after she was taken care by her mother P.W.1, she was sent to the
matrimonial home. After 10 days, when P.W.1 visited the deceased, she
complained to her that the accused persons were treating her with cruelty.
The next day ie., on 23.07.2009, P.W.1 received an information that her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
daughter sustained burn injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital,
Kumbakonam. P.W.1 rushed to the Hospital and complained about the
cruelty meted out by A1 and A2, and that A3 had poured kerosene on her
daughter and set her on fire. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on
24.07.2009.
3.Based on the statement recorded by the deceased, an FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.232 of 2009 and the investigation was taken up by
P.W.24. After completion of investigation, a final report was laid and
charges were framed against the accused persons.
4.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21 and identified and marked M.O.1 to M.O.13. The Court below on
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of
evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the case
against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and consequently, all
the accused persons were acquitted from all the charges. Aggrieved by the
same, the mother of the deceased has filed this appeal against acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
5.Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadikuma Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.The Court below, on appreciation of the dying declaration given by
the deceased and the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.14 and P.W.23, came to
the conclusion that the very dying declaration was doubtful, since the
signatures were obtained in blank papers from the deceased. The Court
below also took into consideration the evidence of P.W.13, who was the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry, wherein, he has
stated in his report that the actual reason for the demise of the deceased was
not able to be gathered in the enquiry. Ultimately, the Court below came to
the conclusion that the prosecution did not establish that it was the accused
persons, who were responsible for setting the deceased on fire. Accordingly,
all the accused persons were acquitted from all the charges.
7.This Court does not find any glaring infirmity in the appraisal of the
evidence and there is no perversity or arbitrariness in the judgment passed
by the Court below. The Court below has given a possible view for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
acquitting the accused persons and the same can never be reversed in an
appeal filed against acquittal. The law and issue is too well-settled and
useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of N.Vijayakumar-vs-State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2021(1)
MWN(CR)62.
8.It was submitted that even if the prosecution has not established
homicide and the deceased is presumed to have committed self-immolation,
it was contended that the accused persons should have been punished for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. This submission made on the side of the
appellant does not hold water, since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Narwinder Singh-vs-State of Punjab reported in 2011(2)SCC 47, has held
that Section 221 Cr.P.C., cannot be pressed into operation, since the
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are different from the ingredients of the
offence under Section 302 of IPC and for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the judgment of the Court below and accordingly, this
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
18.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Ns
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tirupanandal Police Station,
Tanjore District.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.313 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
Ns
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.313 of 2019
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
