Madras High Court
A.Palanisamy vs Subramani @ Suresh on 28 October, 2022
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
A.Palanisamy
... Appellant
-Vs.-
1.Subramani @ Suresh
2.Duraisamy
3.Valliammal
4.The State,
rep by, The Inspector of Police,
Anamalai Police Station,
Coimbatore
(Crime No.303 of 2006)
.. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court),
Coimbatore, dated 19.12.2012 and on perusal thereafter set aside the
acquittal of accused (1) to (3).
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
for R4
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal, which is filed by the de facto complainant,
has been preferred against the order of acquittal of the accused.
2. The facts of the case is that the daughter of the appellant got
married to one Subramani @ Suresh/first respondent on 08.09.2005. On
07.07.2006, Maheswari/ daughter of the appellant, committed suicide and
since the death of the daughter of the appellant was within a year from
marriage, the case was registered for the offences under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A and 304B IPC. In view of the
material collected during the RDO enquiry and the police investigation, the
husband of the deceased, father-in-law of the deceased and mother-in-law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
of the deceased were arrayed as accused A1 to A3 respectively.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses
and marked 23 exhibits and two pieces of nylon rope, used by the
deceased for hanging herself, were marked as MO.1 and MO.2. In
defence, two witnesses were examined and a document was marked.
4. On considering the charges of demand of dowry, the trial Court
found that it was not proved and for lack of evidence to prove that the
daughter of the de facto complainant was abated to commit suicide, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused, A1 to A3, from all the charges.
5. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the de facto complainant has
preferred this appeal on the ground that the Court below has failed to
properly appreciate the evidence let in by the prosecution, particularly, the
demand of balance dowry amount of Rs.5,000/- made by A1 a day before
the suicide of daughter of the PW1, which was spoken by PW1 and also
about the panchayat held regarding the demand of dowry, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
spoken by PW2, PW3 and PW4. The same was erroneously disbelieved
and not properly appreciated by the Court below.
6. The prime contentions of the appellant/de facto complainant is
that death of his daughter within a year of marriage was due to dowry
harassment caused by the respondent. However, on considering the facts
illustrated during the cross examination through DW1 and DW2, the trial
Court has found that the mother of the deceased was not compatible with
the in-laws family of the deceased and from the day of marriage, there was
quarrel. The abortion of 1½ months of fetus of the deceased has caused
depression and led her to committing suicide.
7. On considering the evidence marshaled by the prosecution,
particularly, from the evidence of PW1/appellant/de facto complainant,
PW2/Malliga/wife of PW1, PW3/cousin of the deceased and PW4/a
family member of the deceased, this Court finds that there is allegation of
demand of additional dowry after marriage and the deceased, who was
conceived, could not get along with the pregnancy due to her health
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
conditions. Therefore on the advise of the Doctor, fetus was aborted.
Thereafter, though PW1 stated that there was dispute between the spouses
and the persons of the village panchayathars, deceased was sent to the
accused home, there is no evidence from the panchayathar to substantiate
the said fact.
8. That apart, the recovery of two pro-notes executed by PW2
alleged to have been recovered in the course of the investigation and the
same is marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. A perusal of these two pro-notes,
indicates that PW2/mother of the deceased has borrowed Rs.20,000/-
each, under these two pro-notes from one Senathipathi, who is examined
as PW4. These two pro-notes were alleged to have been recovered by the
police long after incident, that is on 08.07.2006 and the same has been
forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate much later on 02.04.2007.
Therefore, in the light of this delay in surfacing these two pro-notes and
evidence of PW4/Senathipathi, who happens to be the lender of
Rs.20,000/- each under two pronotes to PW2, this Court finds that this has
no relevance to the allegation of the dowry demand on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
accused/respondent. The money, which was borrowed from
PW4/Senathipathi, was paid to the respondents. Though PW4/Senathipathi
says that the money was borrowed from him by PW2 to give it to A1, this
will not lead to an inference that it was given as dowry on the demand of
A1.
9. That apart, the trial Court has rightly suspected the genuineness
of the documents on considering the the delayed introduction of these two
documents and production of these documents before Court after nearly 10
months of the occurrence. Yet another reason to suspect the genuineness of
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 to co-relate with the dowry demand is that Ex.P2 is dated
10.11.2005 and Ex.P3 is dated 15.03.2006. Though the statement of
accounts maintained by PW4 appear to have been seized by the
Investigating Officer and marked as Ex.P5, the actual statement of
accounts was not marked.
10. The incriminating evidence against A1 is the statement of PW9,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
PW10, PW11, who are the residents living near the house of the victim.
According to them, the demand of Rs.20,000/- was made by A1 to support
his banyan business and it does not carried in trappings of dowry demand.
11. Further, though the enquiry report of RDO, which is marked as
Ex.P17, indicates that the deceased was beaten up and hanged, the
postmortem report indicates that the death is a suicidal death by hanging
herself. Ex.P8/Postmortem report concludes stating that aberration on the
back of the left elbow and left leg are the external injuries, apart from
ligature mark running on the upper part of neck. The Doctor has opined
that deceased could have appear to be died due to asphyxia caused by
hanging.
12. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of
dowry by cogent evidence and what was alleged to have been given to A1,
during the marriage and thereafter, was not on demand as dowry but
voluntarily offered as Seedhana and financial assistance to run his
business. Relying upon some of the rules of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
the trial Court had extended benefits of doubt and acquitted the accused.
Since the accused have probabilised their defense stating that the marriage
between deceased and A1 was solemnized against the wish of PW1 and
PW2 and they went to break the marriage and put pressure on the
deceased causing mental disturbance, the trial Court had arrived at above
conclusion of acquittal. The appellant has earned double benefits of doubt
and acquittal by the trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is
justified by appropriate reasons and evidence.
13. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no reason to
interfere the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal
against acquittal is dismissed.
28.10.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
nsa
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Anamalai Police Station,
Coimbatore
(Crime No.303 of 2006)
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
nsa
Crl.A.No.129 of 2015
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
