Madras High Court
Mohamed Beevi vs State Rep By on 21 June, 2023
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
1.Mohamed Beevi
2.Noorjakhan ... Appellants
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Sethu Baavaa Chathiram Police Station,
Tanjore District.
(Crime No.170 of 2010) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgement and conviction dated
28.04.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Tanjore in S.C.No.135 of 2012 and acquit the
appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.B.Senthilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgement and
conviction dated 28.04.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tanjore in S.C.No.
135 of 2012 and acquit the appellants.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2010, the deceased
was married to son of the second accused. During their marriage,
Rs.50,000/- and 17 sovereigns of gold jewels were presented to them.
After two months, again the accused persons demanded Rs.10,000/-, for
which, Rs.4,000/- along with new cloths worth about Rs.1,500/- were
presented to the accused family. Even then, without satisfying with the
presentation, they demanded more dowry and they also threatened by
stating that if the deceased family failed to give dowry, then they will
apply for divorce. Therefore, the deceased got humiliated and committed
suicide by hanging herself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
3.Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in Cr.No.170 of
2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On receipt of report from the Revenue
Divisional Officer, the case has been altered into the offence under
Section 304(B) r/w Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Harassment
Act. There are five accused. On the side of the prosecution, they had
examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of
the accused persons, no one was examined and no documents were
marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section
304(B) r/w Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Harassment Act. They
were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo six months simple
imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants preferred the
present appeal.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the appellants are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.
No one had adduced that the appellants abducted the deceased to commit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
suicide at any point of time. There was no demand of dowry and no
harassment was made till her death. There were material contradiction
between evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.4/FIR. The trial Court only based
on the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, convicted the
appellants. No witnesses supported the case of the prosecution to bring
the charges under Section 304(B) r/w Section 4 of the Prohibition of
Dowry Harassment Act to home. The trial Court mechanically convicted
the appellants and prayed for acquittal.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police would submit that the deceased had committed suicide
by hanging herself, when she was at four month pregnancy. No women
committed suicide during her pregnancy unless there is humiliation, due
to dowry harassment and other cruelty. P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically
deposed that even at the time of marriage, after presentation of jewels
and cash, the appellants demanded more dowry. When they asking
Rs.10,000/-, the deceased family gave Rs.4,000/- and cloths worth about
Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, the appellants scolded and abused the victim, one
day before the date of occurrence and as such, she committed suicide, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
the next day, by hanging herself. Before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
the husband of the deceased categorically deposed that one day before
the date of incident, the appellants demanded dowry from the victim.
Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved its case beyond any doubt and
the trial Court correctly convicted the appellant and it does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
records.
7.Admittedly, the deceased got married to the son of the first
appellant on 14.03.2010. During their marriage, they were presented
Rs.50,000/-, 17 sovereigns of gold jewels and other household articles.
Thereafter, the appellants demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-.
However, the deceased family had given only Rs.4,000/- and cloths
worth about Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, on 23.08.2010, the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself, when her husband was not in
house. The first information report has been registered only as against the
in-laws and not as against the husband. The father of the deceased was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
examined as P.W.1. He deposed that one day before the date of
occurrence, they had given Rs.4,000/- and new cloths worth about
Rs.1,500/-. It was questioned by the appellants and demanded more
money. On the next day, the victim committed suicide by hanging
herself. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborated the same.
8.On perusal of report submitted by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, which was marked as Ex.P.3 reveals that the deceased
committed suicide only because of the dowry harassment by the
appellants. The trial Court mainly relied upon the report submitted by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, to convict the appellants. Further, the
husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.11. He did not supported
the case of the prosecution. He also deposed before the Revenue
Divisional Officer that the deceased committed suicide without any
reason. In fact, on 22.08.2010, the deceased family came there in order
to celebrate Ramzan and presented dresses and it was disputed by the
appellants and asked more money. However, the husband of the
deceased deposed that the first appellant prepared tea and served to the
deceased and her husband, at about 11.00 pm. On the next day, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
23.08.2010, when the husband of the deceased went for his work, the
deceased committed suicide in the house. Therefore, soon before the
death, there was no dowry harassment. That apart, even till her suicide,
there was no complaint on allegation that the appellants made harassment
and asked huge dowry from the deceased. The trial Court only on the
assumption, that too, on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, convicted the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond any doubt as against the appellants. There was
also contradictions in the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and FIR. That
apart, the husband of the deceased was not implicated as an accused,
which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction cannot be sustained as against the appellants and liable to be
set aside. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
Court in S.C.No.135 of 2012 is hereby set aside and this criminal appeal
is allowed.
21.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
Internet : Yes / No
gns
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
gns
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Tanjore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sethu Baavaa Chathiram Police Station,
Tanjore District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.165 of 2016
21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
