Madras High Court
Rajeshwari vs State Rep By on 6 January, 2023
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 06.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
Rajeshwari : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.286 of 2012) : Respondent/Complaint
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 04.12.2019 in S.C.No.
338/2016 on the file of the learned Mahila Court (Fast Track Court),
Thoothukudi.
For Appellant : MrR.Manickaraj,
for Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated
04.12.2019 in S.C.No.338/2016 on the file of the learned Mahila Court
(Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi.
2.The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. The deceased Mariselvi was 13 years old at the time of incident
and was not good in studies. Her parents (the appellant and Gopal-P.W.1)
exerted her studies, but in vein. On 03.06.2012, they admitted her in
Government Aided Residential School in Koviplatti, to pursue her studies.
However, since she was least interested in studies, she returned home on
11.06.2012 in the midnight on having escaped from the hostel without
informing the Warden. On 12.06.2012, the appellant chided her for running
away from the hostel and not pursuing her studies. This appeared to trigger
a quarrel between the appellant and her daughter in which, the appellant is
alleged to have angrily thrown kerosene on the daughter and lighted. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
took place around 7.00 a.m., on 12.06.2012. At this time, P.W.1 was fast
asleep. On hearing the deceased hollering, P.W.1 woke up and immediately
carried Mariselvi to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, where she was
admitted as inpatient. The Wound Certificate (Ex.P.8) shows that she has
suffered 50% burns.
2.2. On information to the police, Latha (P.W.13) Sub-Inspector of
Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the
statement of Mariselvi and the same has been marked as Ex.P.1. Based on
the said statement, P.W.13 registered a case in Kovilpatti West Police
Station in Crime No.286 of 2012, on 12.06.2012 at 11.15 hours, under
Section 307 IPC against the appellant and the said FIR was received by the
jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.30 a.m., on 13.06.2012 as could be seen from
the endorsement thereon. Investigation of the case was taken over by
Selvaraj, P.W.1.4, Inspector of Police.
2.3. The dying declaration (Ex.P.15) was recorded by the
jurisdictional Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti on 12.06.2012 between 11.50 a.m
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
and 12.10 p.m. and the same has been marked as Ex.P.15. Dr.Sreekumar
(P.W.8), who was treating Mariselvi has certified that Mariselvi was
conscious and fit state of mind to give a statement. Based on that, the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, recorded the statements (Ex.P.
9 and Ex.P.15). Of course, we find in the dying declaration itself the
certificate of Dr.Sreekumar P.W.8 to the effect that Mariselvi was conscious
and she was in fit state of mind. The appellant was arrested by the police on
14.06.2012 and was remanded to custody.
2.4. Mariselvi was given medical treatment for over four months.
Mariselvi was discharged from the hospital on 10.07.2012 and on account
of burns not healing, she was readmitted in the hospital on 25.07.2012.
Thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital on 27.08.2012. Again on
04.09.2012, she was admitted in the hospital, but she unfortunately
succumbed to the injuries on 01.10.2012 at 22.40 hours. Pursuant to the
above, the case was altered from one under Section 307 IPC to Section 302
IPC vide alteration report [Ex.P.18]. Selvaraj [P.W.14], conducted inquest
over the body of the deceased and inquest report was marked as Ex.P.19.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
Dr.Mari Raj, performed autopsy on the body of Mariselvi and issued the
postmortem certificate [Ex.P-10]. Dr.Mari Raj, in the postmortem
certificate has stated that the patient was infected partially healing
scalps/burns over the body.
2.5. After examining various witnesses and collecting the report of the
experts, the investigating officer completed the investigation and filed a
final report in P.R.C.No.29 of 2013 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Kovilpatti, for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the
appellant.
2.6. On appearance of the appellant/accused, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of
Session, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.338 of 2016 and was made over to the
Mahila Court (FTC) Sessions Level, Thoothukudi, for trial. The trial Court
framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the appellant/accused and
when questioned, the appellant pleaded “not guilty”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
2.7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and
marked 24 exhibits and 5 material objects. When the appellant was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him, she did not offer any explanation. No witness was
examined from the side of the appellant. Ex.D.1 was marked from the side
of the appellant to show that the deceased was studying 6th Standard in the
said school. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order, dated 04.12.2019 in S.C.No.338
of 2016, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The prosecution has proved the following facts beyond a
peradventure:
(a) The appellant and P.W.1 are the parents of the deceased Mariselvi;
(b) Mariselvi was 13 years old at the time of incident;
(c) Mariselvi suffered burn injuries; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
(d) Mariselvi died on 01.10.2012.
4. The short question is whether the appellant was responsible for the
burn injuries suffered by Mariselvi?
5. We have two dying declarations in this case viz., the complaint
(Ex.P.1) that was given by Mariselvi to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.13
and the one given by her to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti,
(Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.15). In both the dying declarations, she has stated that
since she was not properly studying, her mother was angry with her and
when she returned home from hostel, her mother questioned her and
thereafter, poured kerosene and set fire. But however, the question is
whether the appellant had intention to commit the murder of her daughter.
6.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was not interested in
studying and had left the residential school on the night of 11.06.2012
without informing anyone and had come home in the midnight. On the next
day, the appellant being the mother of the deceased was very upset that her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
daughter was not going to school. Therefore, a quarrel appears to have
enured between the appellant and the deceased in which, the appellant is
said to have thrown kerosene on her and set fire. It may be relevant to state
that initially, the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC
and only after four months, when Mariselvi succumbed to injuries, the case
was altered to one under Section 302 IPC. Records show that Mariselvi who
received the burn injuries got admitted in the hospital on 12.06.2012 and
was discharged from the hospital. On 10.07.2012 again, she was admitted
on 25.07.2012 and discharged on 27.08.2012 for over three times as stated
by us above was in and out of the hospital and finally got admitted on
04.09.2012. She finally succumbed to injuries in the hospital only on
01.10.2012.
7. Taking all these facts into consideration, we afraid that we cannot
sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302
IPC and instead, the conviction can be one under Section 304(1) IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
8. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set
aside. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC
and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to under go 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The fine
amount already paid for the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC
would hold good for this too. The appellant is directed to immediately
secure the appellant and produce her before the trial Court and on such
production, she shall be remanded to custody for undergoing the remaining
part of sentence after set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
[P.N.P., J.] [G.J., J.]
06.01.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
NS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2020
P.N.PRAKASH, J
AND
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
To
1.The Mahila Court
(Fast Track Court),
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.283 of 2020
06.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
