Madras High Court
Aandiyappan vs The State Rep. By Its on 20 October, 2022
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
Aandiyappan ... Appellant
..vs..
The State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
Thiyagadurugam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.249 of 2015. ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the
conviction and sentence against the appellant in S.C.No.223 of 2016
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast
Track Mahila Court), Villupuram dated 13.09.2021 and allow this
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the trial Court dated
13.09.2021 in S.C.No.223 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram
and allow this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A2/appellant herein, and A3
are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and the parents
of the first accused. The marriage between the deceased viz., Kavitha
and the first accused was solemnised on 25.05.2015. At the time of
performing marriage, the parents of the deceased had given
25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the victim and 3 sovereigns of jewels to
the first accused and also a Honda Twister Two-wheeler. In addition to
that, household articles were also provided as Sridhana. After marriage,
the first accused by demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry
ill-treated, harassed and humiliated the deceased. A2 also insulted her
Page No.2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
with filthy language. When A1 and A2 ill-treated and harassed the
deceased, A3 instead of preventing them stood only as a mute spectator.
3. In one such occasion, when A1 was not in the house and the
appellant/A2 was taking food, the appellant told the deceased that the
food prepared by her is not good and there is no salt and chilly in the
food. When the husband/A1 came in late night, the deceased informed
the same to her husband/A1 and he replied, leave that matter and don't
bother about it. However, on the next day i.e., on 09.10.2015, when A1
left for his work, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself.
Hence, PW1/father of the deceased made a complaint against all the
accused.
4. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.249 of 2015
against the appellant/A2 and other 2 accused for the offence under
Section 174 (iii) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the respondent Police filed a
charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and the same
was taken on file in PRC.No.25 of 2016.
Page No.3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
5. The learned Magistrate after considering the fact that the
offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by the
Court of Session, committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge,
Villupuram. Subsequently, the case was made over to the Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram by the
Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The Mahila Court taken the case
on file in S.C.No.223 of 2016 and after completing the formalities,
framed charges against all the accused for the offences under Sections
498 (A), 304 (B) IPC.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial, on the
side of the prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined as PW1
to PW18 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and no
Material Objects were marked. After completion of the prosecution side
evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the
prosecution witnesses were put against the appellant/accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating
Page No.4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence,
3 witnesses were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and no document was
exhibited.
7. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either
side and also considering the materials available on record, acquitted A1
to A3 for the offence under Sections 304(B) IPC and 498(A)(b) IPC;
acquitted A1 and A3 for the offence under Sections 498(A)(a) IPC and;
and convicted the appellant/A2 for the offence under Sections 498(A)(a)
IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a
sum of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
appellant/A2, has filed the present appeal before this Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons under
Sections 498 (A), 304(B) IPC. All the accused were acquitted for the
Page No.5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
offences under 304(B) IPC. However, from the very same evidence and
material, the Trial Court, acquitted A1 and A3 for the offence under
Section 498(A)(a) IPC, but erroneously convicted the appellant for the
said offence.
9. There is no independent eyewitnesses to the said occurrence.
There is no materials to show that soon before the death, the appellant
humiliated the victim, which led to her commit suicide. Even though the
RDO/PW17, who conducted the inquest, has filed the report stating that
the death was due to dowry and cruelty, but the same was not
substantiated by any evidence by the prosecution. Hence, the Trial Court
acquitted all the charges against 2 of the accused, viz., A1 and A3.
10. The only allegation against the appellant is that on the previous
night of the occurrence, he commented about the preparation of food and
except that no other allegation was made against him. The Trial Court
found guilty of the appellant only for the said statement, but it is not an
Page No.6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
ingredient for punishing him under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. On the very
same oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the
offence under Section 304(B) IPC was not made out even against the
appellant also. The Trial Court further held that the offence under
Section 498(A)(a) IPC is also not made out against A1 and A3. However,
wrongfully convicted the appellant under Section 498(A)(a) IPC without
any sufficient evidence. Except the defence side witnesses A1 to A3
before the RDO that on the previous night of the occurrence date, when
A1 was not in the house and while the appellant was taking food, he had
stated that he is a sugar patient and preparation of food is not at all good.
When A1 came to the house at late night, she informed the same and A1
asked her to ignore the same. Except this no other materials are available
to convict the appellant under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. The Trial Court
not properly appreciated the evidence and also not understood the object
of Section 498(A)(a) IPC and only on the symapthy ground as the wife
of A1 died in the matrimonial home, convicted the appellant, which
warrants interference of this Court.
Page No.7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that the death of the deceased was within
7 years from the date of marriage and the accused A1 to A3 by
demanding dowry humiliated her and caused cruelty. Since there was no
evidence to show that soon before the death, A1 and A3 caused cruelty
and demanded dowry, the Trial Court acquitted them. However, the
appellant alone is convicted since on previous night of the occurrence
day, the appellant caused mental cruelty to the deceased, which led to her
to commit suicide. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of the
evidence found that soon before the death there was a humiliation by the
appellant towards the victim. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted
the appellant and hence, there is no perversity in the judgment.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused
the materials available on record.
13. Admittedly A1 is the husband and A2 and A3 are the in-laws of
the deceased. The marriage between A1 and the deceased was
Page No.8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
solemnised on 25.05.2015. The deceased strangulated herself with her
saree on 09.10.2015. As the death was within 7 years from the date of the
marriage, there was some presumption under Section 113 (B) of the
Indian Evidence Act and therefore it was suspected as a dowry death.
Though the parents of the deceased also spoken before the RDO in
inquest that there was a demand of dowry and cruelty from the accused
viz., A1 to A3, as the said allegation was not substantiated beyond
reasonable doubt, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offence
under Section 304(B) IPC. The Trial Court also found that soon before
the death, there was no cruelty caused by A1 and A3, therefore they were
found not guilty for the offence under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. Hence, A1
and A3 were acquitted for the said offences, but the appellant alone was
convicted for the offences under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. Neither the
defacto complainant nor the prosecution has filed appeal against the said
findings. This appeal is filed only by A2 against the findings of the Trial
Court for convicting him for the offence under Section 498(A)(a) IPC.
Page No.9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
14. On a careful perusal of the entire materials and the findings
given by the Trial Court, it is seen that there are no materials to show
against A1 and A3. Even for convicting the appellant for the offence
under Section 498(A)(a) IPC, the only reason assigned was that soon
before the death of the deceased, i.e., on the previous night of the
occurrence day, the appellant while taking food made a comment that he
was not satisfied with the food prepared by the victim. For the above said
comment, the Trial Court found guilty of the appellant and convicted
him, and no other material was substantiated by the prosecution against
the appellant.
15. A reading of Section 498(A)(a) IPC makes it very clear that
there is no ingredients against the appellant to punish him under the said
Section. For better understanding 498(A)(a) IPC is extracted hereunder:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
Page No.10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman."
16. Section 498(A) IPC clearly shows that only if cruelty leads a
person to commit suicide, then the person who caused cruelty can be
convicted under this Section. The reason assigned for convicting the
appellant under Section 498(A)(a) IPC, is that on the previous night of
the occurrence day, he made a comment that the preparation of food by
the deceased was not good. The deceased informed the same to her
husband and he asked her to ignore the same. Therefore it leads to
commit suicide. A1/husband was acquitted for the said offence, but
simply convicted the appellant alone for the above said allegation, which
is not proper.
Page No.11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
17. This Court finds that the allegations does not meets the
ingredients of Section 498(A)(a) IPC. A mere tear and wear of the day to
day affairs in the family may not be a ground for a woman to commit
suicide. For that purpose if she commits suicide, that may not be a
ground for convict the appellant under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the Trial Court does not properly
appreciated the evidence and erroneously convicted the appellant under
Section 498(A)(a) IPC.
18. As the first appellate Court is a final Court of fact finding, while
reappreciating the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution
failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt
for the offence under Section 498(A)(a) IPC. Therefore, this Court finds
that the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court against the
appellant for the offence under Section 498(A)(a) IPC warrants
interference and hence, the judgment and conviction sentenced by the
Trial Court as against the appellant is liable to be set aside. Resultantly,
Page No.12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court
is set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant is ordered to be
refunded forthwith.
20.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
pvs
To
1. Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thiyagadurugam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records, if any, to the
High Court, Madras. | trial Court
Page No.13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
pvs
Crl.A.No.484 of 2021
20.10.2022
Page No.14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
