Madras High Court
Munusamy @ Ravi vs State Rep By on 19 October, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.A.No.507 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 26.09.2024
Pronounced on : 19.10.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.507 of 2018
Munusamy @ Ravi .... Appellant / Accused-1
Vs
State rep by:
The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Washermenpet Range
Chennai - 600 081.
(Crime No.639/2013) .... Respondent / Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the conviction imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in
S.C.No.96 of 2015 dated 01.8.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
Assisted by Ms.J.R.Archana
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.507 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein who was arrayed as A1 in S.C.No.96 of 2015 on the file of
the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, has come forward with this appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for offences under
Sections 304B and 498A IPC. Along with the appellant, his mother (A2) also
faced trial, but the trial Court acquitted the appellant's mother.
2. On 30.05.2013 at around 8.00 in the morning, a certain Priya, the wife of the
appellant had set fire upon herself and she succumbed to her injuries later in the
day at around 5.45 p.m. The prosecution case opens with Ext.P1 complaint
preferred by P.W.1, the friend of the victim. The details are as below :
a) In Ext.P1, complaint, P.W.1 states that the appellant was an alcoholic
and did not care his family, that on the date of occurrence at around
8.00 in the morning, she went to her friend's house (victim's house)
and found her with severe burn injuries. Therefore, she along with
P.W.2 (other friend of Priya) and others removed her to a private
hospital, but the private hospital asked them to take her to Kilpauk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Medical College Hospital for treatment.
b) The victim was accordingly taken to Kilpauk Medical College
Hospital, where P.W.7, the doctor received her, observed her and
prepared Ext.P4, accident register. He denoted that the victim had
suffered burn injuries. As stated earlier, at around 5.45 in the evening,
Priya died.
c) P.W.9, the doctor who treated her, gave Ext.P6 death report, wherein
she had indicated that the victim had suffered 100% burn injuries.
d) The body was sent for post-mortem and P.W.10 performed autopsy on
the body and came out with Ext.P7 post-mortem report.
e) In the meantime, acting on the complaint, P.W.12 registered Ext.P9
FIR under Section 309 IPC. He would then visit the scene of
occurrence (SOC), prepared Ext.P11, observation mahazar and
Ext.P10, rough plan of SOC in the presence of P.W.5 and P.W.6
(witnesses) and also seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 under Ext.P12, seizure
mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses.
f) Subsequently, P.W.14, the Assistant Commissioner of Police took over
the investigation. He filed necessary memo for altering the provisions
of offence from Secs.309 IPC to 498A and 304B IPC .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
g) The investigating agency recorded the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who as stated earlier were the friends of Priya, and P.W.3 and P.W.4,
the parents of Priya.
h) Since the marriage between Priya and the appellant was less than
seven years old at that relevant time, the Revenue Divisional Officer
conducted his inquest and came up with Ext.P14, inquest report, in
which he had recorded his opinion that there indeed was a dowry
demand.
i) The investigation was taken over by P.W.15, and he laid the final
report under Secs.498A and 304B IPC against the appellant and his
mother.
3. The trial Court framed charges under the aforesaid two provisions both
against the appellant as well as his mother. Post trial, the trial Court found it fit
to acquit A2, the mother of the appellant, and convicted the appellant (A1) on
both the scores and imposed sentences on him as stated below :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Case No. Offence Sentence
S.C.No.96/2015 on the 498A IPC Three years simple imprisonment with a
file of Sessions Judge, fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo
Mahalir Neethimandram, further period of six months simple
Chennai imprisonment.
304B IPC Seven years simple imprisonment
These sentences were directed to run concurrently. This judgement of the trial
court is in appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that :
a) The prosecution's allegation relating to the case of suicide by Priya
commences with an allegation of neglect of his family by the appellant
due to his alcoholism, but it later developed into one for demand of
Rs.25,000/-. P.W.1 was the first one who saw Priya with substantial
burn injuries. Indeed she had suffered 100% burn injuries (as could be
seen from Ext.P6 death report, proved through P.W.7).
b) According to Ext.P6 death report, Priya died within hours after she was
admitted in the hospital on 30.05.2013. According to P.W.1, she
enquired Priya as to why the latter chose to immolate herself, to which,
Priya had said that she faced harassment from her husband on a demand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for Rs.25,000/-. However in Ext.P1 complaint, P.W.1 did not whisper
about the last conversation she had with the victim. That statement was
the most proximate statement recorded by the investigating agency
immediately after the occurrence. This would imply, the demand for
Rs.25,000/- was a later development and an improvisation of the
prosecution. P.W.2, another friend of Priya, also makes a statement
about the demand, and so also P.W.3 and P.W.4, both of whom are the
parents of the deceased. All these statements were made after Priya's
demise, and there is no evidence to show that there had been a demand
during the lifetime of Priya. Priya had never been to police nor to any of
the relations or friends over the alleged harassment at the hands of her
husband.
c) While Ext.P6 death report states that Priya had suffered 100% burn
injuries, Ext.P7 postmortem report states that Priya had suffered extensive
burn injuries which had penetrated well below the outer skin. It is indeed
difficult to presume that a person who had suffered 100% burn injuries
would have been in the right frame of mind even to speak. If only she
was conscious, something P.W.7, the doctor who issued Ext.P4 accident
register has recorded, then the hospital or the investigating agency ought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to have organised recording of her dying declaration by a Judicial
Magistrate. It was not even attempted.
Summing up his arguments, the learned counsel stated that merely because
Priya had committed suicide, that does not ipso facto be given a criminal
complexion. The worst case scenario would be that the appellant might have
neglected his family due to alcoholism but a neglect of the family cannot
constitute a willful conduct that might drive a person to commit suicide.
5. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor submitted that during the inquest by RDO,
the appellant's mother, who was originally arrayed as A2 in the case had given a
statement that she demanded Rs.25,000/- from her son for construction of a
house. When the mother asked money from the son, necessarily the son need to
find that money, and when the son is irresponsible as he was given to
alcoholism, necessarily he would have demanded the same from his wife and it
eventually was passed on by Priya to her parents.
Discussion and Decision :
6. Priya had committed suicide by self-immolation and she had suffered 100%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
burn injuries. When P.W.1, her friend saw Priya, she was substantially burnt.
And she died later that date. Whether the appellant herein was responsible for
Priya taking to her extreme end is the issue here?
7. P.W.1, as stated, was the first one who saw Priya with burn injuries, and
P.W.1 was the one who removed her to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. In
Ext.P1, complaint, P.W.1 had stated that the appellant herein was given to
alcoholism. And Priya had told the doctor at Kilpauk Medical College that she
had self-immolated herself due to some quarrel with her husband, and the
theory that she had committed suicide because of a demand for Rs.25,000/-
comes later. Here, both P.W.1 and P.W.2, the friends of Priya, and P.W.3 and
P.W.4, both parents of Priya allege that Priya was harassed by her husband to
pay Rs.25,000/- for construction of the house. No dying declaration was
recorded, and given the fact that Priya had suffered 100% burn injuries, it would
be nigh difficult to presume that she might have been in a position to speak that
she set fire upon herself because the appellant had demanded Rs.25,000/-.
Atleast this statement did not find a place in Ext.P1 complaint.
8. Turning to other evidences P.W.3 and P.W.4 are concerned, they did allege
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that Priya had complained to them about the demand for Rs.25,000/-. In her
Ext.P15 report, P.W.13, RDO has reproduced the statement of A2 in which A2
was stated to have required her son (A1) to pay her Rs.25,000/- is concerned, it
is only a report of the RDO and it cannot partake the character of substantive
evidence. Indeed, if A2 must have to be pinned down to certain statements,
purported to have been made to RDO, then that very statement should have been
produced by the prosecution, and A2 should have been required to answer the
same. Therefore, the statement said to have been made by A2 to RDO can only
be considered as a hearsay piece of evidence and cannot be given much credence
to it. That the appellant was an alcoholic and was irresponsible are established
in evidence. And given the fact that neither Priya nor any of her parents had
approached the police, accusing the appellant of harassment founded on demand
for money, this Court requires to go slow on the said allegation. Plain
irresponsibility of an alcoholic, which has become a common culture among
substantial populous, by itself cannot be considered as a willful conduct within
the meaning of Section 498A IPC, as could have driven a woman to commit
suicide.
9. Turning to charge under Section 304B IPC is concerned, the evidence as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
made available, if read cogently, does not lead to any inference that Priya had
committed suicide owing to dowry demand.
10. In the result, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in
S.C.No.96 of 2015 dated 01.8.2018, is set aside. Any fine amount if deposited
by the appellant is directed to be refunded to him.
.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Sessions Judge
Mahila Court
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Washermenpet Range
Chennai - 600 081.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
