Madras High Court
Karnan vs The State Rep. By on 26 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
Crl.A(MD)No.137 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31.01.2025
Pronounced on : 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.137 of 2021
Karnan ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Valliyoor Sub Division,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(in Cr.No.31 of 2013) ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment
in S.C.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Tirunelveli, dated 29.12.2020 and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
1/37
Crl.A(MD)No.137 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Subbaiah
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Aravinthan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant/accused No.1 in the judgment dated
29.12.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli in
S.C.No.144 of 2014 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 304(B) IPC and 4(B) of The Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in default,
to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
for the offence under Section Section 4(B) of The Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(a) On 25.06.2012, the deceased Raksha Rajabai lodged a
complaint before the Valliyoor Women Police Station as follows:
The first accused is her husband, the second accused is her
mother-in-law and the third accused is her sister-in-law. The marriage
between the petitioner and A1 was solemnized in the year 2009. At the
time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was given as dowry. She was
provided with 50 sovereign jewels and sridhana articles worth about
Rs.75,000/-. After marriage, both the petitioner and A1 lived happily for
one year.
(b) Out of said wedlock a female child was born and now
she is aged about 1-1/2 years and she is currently eight months pregnant.
(c) Within two months of the marriage, A1 took all her
jewels and pledged it in a Bank under the pretext of settling his debts.
A1 also assaulted her and subjected her to cruelty, following the ill-
advice of A2 and A3. Five months back A2 chased her, threatening that
she must bring a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, if she wanted her jewels back. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
she complained about the same to her parents, her father who was met
with an accident, became bedridden and handicapped not in a position to
give anything. Despite that, the accused continued to demand dowry.
(d) On 26.06.2012, at about 7.00 PM, A1 came with a sword
and threatened them with dire consequences after knowing that the
petitioner was pregnant stating that if they paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, he
would live with her (complainant) or he would marry another girl. When
she complained to A2 and A3, they also abused her with filthy language
and threatened her with dire consequences.
(e) Subsequently, she died on 01.02.2013 at about 12.50
hours, his brother lodged a complaint with the following allegations :
Her sister was married to one Karnan during the year 2009.
They had two female children. Her sister's husband had a habit of
consuming alcohol. Her sister came to stay at their house. Her husband
was a driver employed in Trichy, came and took her sister ten days back
to his house. On 31.01.2013, they had a problem. On 01.02.2013 at about
12.15 hours, her sister's husband called him on his cell phone and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
informed that her sister was hanging up in ceiling. Immediately he along
with his father had gone to his sister's house and witnessed, her sister
was hanging from the ceiling fan in the upstairs bedroom, hence, he
prayed for action.
(f) P.W.16, Thiru.Manoj Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police,
after receipt of the complaint Ex.P2, registered a FIR-Ex.P10 in crime
No.31/2013 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C. He had sent the
FIR to the Revenue Divisional Officer and copies to the Valliyoor Deputy
Superintendent of Police through Thiru.Subramanian, Head Constable
899, for further course of action.
(g) P.W.17, Tmt.Paji Payaraj Rohini Ramdoss, deposed that
when she was working as Sub Collector, Cheran Mahadevi, after receipt
of the FIR had gone to the place of occurrence, on 01.02.2013 at about
10.30 hours and conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared an
inquest report under Ex.P11. Thereafter, sent the dead body for
postmortem through Thiru.Ramanathan, Head Constable 1844. During
inquest, she examined Malliga, mother of the victim, Michael Robinson,
the complainant, neighbours viz., Gajendran, Karnan, Mani, Shanthi and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
panchayatdhars Jayaraj, Selvakumar, Muthuraman, Paulmani, Rajan and
recorded their statements. In her report, she opined that accused used to
create problem with the deceased by demanding dowry often led to
quarrel and the deceased would have died due to demand for dowry.
(h) P.W.18, Thiru.Stanly Jones, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, took the file for investigation and on 01.02.2013 went to the place
of occurrence at about 6.30 a.m. in the presence of witnesses, Jayaselvan
and Jayaram, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P4 and rough sketch
Ex.P.12.
(i) He examined the witnesses, Michael Robinson, Samuvel
Nadar @ Swami Nadar, Malliga, Gajendran, Esakkiammal, Selvi,
Jayaram and Jaya Selvan and recorded their statements. Since the
deceased died within seven years of marriage, Cheran Mahadevi, Sub
Collector conducted inquest on the dead body.
(j) On 02.02.2013, he also examined Muthaiah, Paulmani,
Muthuraman, Rajan and recorded their statements. In his examination, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
was revealed that the deceased had committed suicide due to demand of
dowry, at about 7.30 hours he had arrested the accused and sent to
judicial custody. Thereafter, he altered the section of law under section
304(B) IPC under Ex.P13 and send the same to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate.
(k) On 03.02.2013, he examined the witnesses, Selvakumar,
Fr.Abraham Selvaraj, Jayammalar and recorded their statements and
obtained the Marriage Registration Certificate which was produced by
Fr.Abraham Selvaraj.
(l) He also examined Thiru.Manoj Kumar, Sub Inspector of
Police, Head Constable Thiru.Ramanathan and recorded their statements.
He examined P.W.15 Tmt.Judy, Inspector of Police who had examined
the complaint in C.S.R.No.213/2012 on the file of All Women Police
Station, Valliyoor and received connected documents.
(m) On 19.02.2013, he examined P.W.13 Thiru.Ashokan,
Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Valliyoor, in which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
jewels of the deceased was mortgaged. He examined Mrs.Stella, the
Officer of BWDA Finance Ltd., (BFL) Panagudi and recorded her
statement and came to know that the deceased Raksha Rajabai, had
repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the loan obtained by her husband and
received the statement produced by the said witness under Ex.P14.
(n) On 25.03.2013, he examined P.W.11 Dr.Sridharan.
Dr.Sridharan, who had issued the postmortem report under Ex.P6 and
final opinion under Ex.P7 and described the injuries on the dead body as
follows:
“APPEARANCE FOUND AT THE POST
MORTEM:
Moderately nourished body of a female. Finger and toe
nails blue.
An incomplete oblique ligature mark of size 29 x 3cm
seen in front and sides of neck with a gap of items in
between the ends. The ligature mark lies 9 cms below
right ear, 8 cm below chin and 7cm below left ear and
9 cm above supra sternal notch. The skin at the
ligature mark is dark in colour and hard in
consistency. On bloodless dissection of neck
underlying soft tissues appears pale and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
extravasation of blood in the surrounding soft tissues.
OTHER FINDINGS:
Heart: Tardieu spots seen over surface, coronaries
vessels: patent.
Hyoid bone: Intact.
Stomach: Contains 200gms of partially digested cooked
rice particles, no specific smell and mucusa congested.
Lungs: Tardieu spots seen over surface, c/s congested.
Liver, Spleen & Kidneys: normal, c/s congested.
Brain: surface vessels are prominent, petechial
haemorrhage over surface, c/s congested.
Small intestine: Contains 100gms of partially digested
cooked rice particles, no specific smell and mucusa
congested.
Bladder: empty.
Uterus: normal, c/s empty, right ovarian cyst present.
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.
Death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to
postmortem examination.
OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH:
RESERVED, PENDING CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
REPORT.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
In his final opinion Ex.P7, he stated that
“the deceased would appear to have died due to
Asphyzia due to ante mortem hanging.”.
(o) P.W.18, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on
25.03.2013 he examined P.W.17 Tmt.Paji Payaraj Rohini Ramdoss. Sub
Collector, Cheran Mahadevi, and recorded her statement. On 12.04.2013,
he examined P.W.12 Tmt.Kala Lakshmi, Forensic Officer and recorded
her statement.
(p) On 07.08.2013, he completed the investigation and filed
final report/charge sheet against A1 to A3 accused for the offence under
sections 406, 304(B) IPC and section 4(B) of TNPWH Act, 1998.
3. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyoor took up the case in P.R.C.No.36 of 2013 and issued summons
to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of all the entire
records were furnished to him free of costs under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under Section 209(A)
Cr.P.C. for further action.
5. The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli received the case
records, numbered it as S.C.No.144 of 2014 and made over it to the
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli for disposal according to law.
6. After receipt of the case records, the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, framed charges against A1 to A3 for
the offence under Sections 304(B) IPC section 4(B) of TNPWH Act,
1998. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The
accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case
was posted for trial.
7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side
of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14
were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 was produced. On the side of the
accused, no witness was examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
8. After full trial, the trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 from
the charges and convicted the appellant/accused No.1, for the offence
punishable under Section 304(B) IPC and section 4(B) of TNPWH Act,
1998 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in default, to
undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
Section 4(B) of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women
Act, 1998, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed on
the following among other grounds:-
(i) That the trial Court cannot apply two different yard stick, in the
appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, one set, as against
the appellant and the other set as against A2 and A3, whereas, the
appreciation of evidence, ultimately holding in favour of A2 and A3
clearly applies to the appellant as well.
(ii) That the trial Court has not at all considered the evidence of
P.W.5 to P.W.8, though, they were treated as hostile witnesses, as against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
the settled law that the evidence of the hostile witnesses also ought to be
considered.
(iii) That the trial Court ought to have seen that the disputes in
between the appellant and his wife the deceased are only on account of
the financial loss sustained by the appellant, and not on account as
spoken to by the entrusted witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3.
(iv) That the trial Court ought to have held that the prosecution has
not made out any case as against the appellant on the charges levelled
and framed as against him and consequently should have acquitted the
appellant.
(v) That the trial Court failed to consider that there is no provision
even under Section 4(B) of TNPHW Act, for the imposition of the
sentence with imprisonment of life, whereas, even the maximum
imprisonment could only be for the imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 10 years, but the imposition of the sentence to undergo
imprisonment of life is equally without any power or jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
(vi) That the trial Court failed to consider that absolutely there is
no explanation as to why, there is no reference to the alleged acts of
cruelty committed by the appellant, even in a short version, ultimately
leading to the alleged suicide committed by the deceased Raksha
Rajabai, only on account of the cruelty committed by him by demanding
dowry and hence, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent states that since the deceased filed a complaint against the
accused regarding dowry harassment and cruelty, the mortgaged jewel
receipt and repayment of loan amount by the deceased proved that the
deceased's jewels were mortgaged at the instigation of accused and she
paid the loan borrowed by accused. The children are still in the custody
of the complainant. Soon after the occurrence the accused absconded.
The prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He
submitted that there was no need to interfere with the judgement of trial
Court and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
11. Now this court has to decide whether the judgement
rendered by trial Court is proper or liable to be set aside.
12. Section 113 B – Indian Evidence Act, deals with
Presumption of dowry death will be on the proof
of the following essentials:
The question before the Court must be whether
the accused had committed the dowry death of a
woman (means that the presumption can be raised only
if the accused is being tried for the offence under
section 304(B)IPC
a)The woman was subjected to harassment by her
husband, his relatives,
b) Such cruelty and harassment was for, or in
connection with, demand for dowry
c) For such harassment was soon before the death
Essential ingredients of Section 304(B) of IPC
reads as follows :
1. The death of a woman must have been caused
by any burns or bodily injury or must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
2. Such death must have been occurred within
seven years of her marriage
Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or a relative of her husband
Such cruelty and harassment must be in connection
with the demand of Dowry and
Such cruelty is shown to have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death.
13. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as follows :
“4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If any
person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents
or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months, but which may extend to
two years and with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than six months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
14. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the wife of A1,
the marriage between the deceased and A1 was solemnized on
07.09.2009 and she died on 01.02.2013, within seven years of marriage.
15. Explanation,-for this section, dowry shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Who-so-ever Commits. Dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
Definition of dowry :
Dowry means any property or valuable security
given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a Marriage to the other party to
the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any
other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include
dowry or Mahr in case of a person to whom the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) applies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
Explanation for the removal of doubt, it is hereby
declared that any presence made at the time of marriage to
either party to the marriage in the form of cash,
ornaments, clothes, or articles, shall not be deemed to be
dowry within the meaning of this Section, unless they are
made as a consideration of the marriage of the said
parties.
Explanation II. The expression “valuable security”
has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.
E.Meaning of cruelty
Any willful contact, of such a nature as is likely to drive a
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health or;
Harassment of women, abusing, insulting or otherwise
harming one in regular works is leading to is to coerce her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
Section 103B of the Evidence Act is also relevant to the
case at hand. Both section 103B of the Indian Evidence
Act and 304B of the Indian penal code were inserted by
the Dowry Prohibition Act 43 of 1986 with a view to
Kardi dowry death
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
16. Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows :
Section 113B – Presumption as to dowry death -
When the question is whether a person has committed
the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section,
"dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in
Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code.
17. The court has to decide whether the deceased was
subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband and his relatives whether
such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for
dowry, and whether the cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
18. Though charges were framed against A1, husband A2
mother of the accused, A3 sister of the accused, A2 and A3 were
acquitted of from all the charges, against which no appeal has been
preferred by the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
19. In the instant case, the record reveals that on the date of
occurrence, the deceased was found hanging in her matrimonial home,
where she was living with her husband, but the complaint made by none
other than the brother of the victim not by the accused.
20. During the trial, the evidence of family members, viz,
mother, brother, and sister, clearly stated that the deceased was cruelly
treated by the accused who was in the habit of demanding dowry, chased
her from the matrimonial home to her parents home. The continuous
cruelty and harassment were not only spoken by the family members, but
the deceased herself made Complaint on 25.06.2012 before the Valliyoor
All Women Police Station, describing the cruelty, demand of money and
harassment meted out to her by the accused.
21. On careful perusal of the entire records, the prosecution
case that unfolded from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.18 is as follows:
(i) The categorical statement of the complainant, brother of
the deceased who was examined as PW1. He deposed that during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
year 2009, his sister married the appellant/A1 at Rosmiapuram CSI
church. For the marriage, she was provided with 50 sovereigns of gold
jewels and cash Rs.1-1/2 lakhs as sridhana. At the time of marriage, A1
run a furniture shop in Sholinganallur at Arakkonam. After the marriage,
she was living with her husband and in-laws. A1 suspected her fidelity
and treated her cruelly. The same was narrated by her sister through
phone. Her sister was staying with the accused for 1-1/2 years at
Chennai. Thereafter, her sister, the deceased, her husband A1, her
mother-in-law, had come to the their native place Thalavaipuram.
Thereafter, sister's husband was not employed anywhere. Her sister's
some of the jewels were sold and spent money for drinking alcohol. He
has not spent any money for the family expenditure. His father alone
helped by providing monthly provisions. A3 took the food cooked by her
sister, both A2 and A3 assaulted her sister. Her sister the deceased used
to call him over phone and narrated everything by weeping. The distance
between the residence of the complainant and her sister is 5 k.m. Soon
after her sister came to Thalavaipuram, she became pregnant. A1 took the
remaining jewels and spent lavishly. Therefore, due to the above, her
sister tried to commit suicide but the complainant and his family saved
her life.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
(ii) After discharge from the hospital, they made her sister to
stay in his residence. She became pregnant for the second time. A1 had
gone to Trichy. After delivery of the second child, her husband came to
Thalavaipuram. His parents had a peace talk with A1 and sent her to her
matrimonial house. Within a month, A1 sold the jewels belonging to the
deceased and consumed alcohol. Again problem started. Her sister
lodged complaint against the accused before Valliyoor All Woman Police
Station. The complaint has been marked as Ex.P1. The Police called her
sister and the accused. The accused had undertaken that he would not
create any problems. The Police sent her sister with the accused to
Thalavaipuram.
(iii) After two months, A1 went to Chennai for employment,
his father alone looking after both the deceased and the children. Both
A2 and A3 treated her sister cruelly and assaulted her, inflicting injury on
her left ear. She went to hospital at Madurai and took treatment.
Thereafter, past three months she was staying with her children in their
residence, till 10 days before her death. A1 came to the residence and
assured her that he would not create any problem and took her sister to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
his residence. Again they demanded money which was stated by his
sister. She was continuously harassed by the accused. The accused took
the complainant's two-wheeler and tried to sell the same. The deceased
sister called him and informed him that the accused was going to sell his
bike. They had gone to his house to bring back the bike, her sister
informed them that her husband had a quarrel and left the place.
Thereafter, they went and collected the bike from the accused on the
same day at about 11.15 hours. Thereafter, her sister contact his father
twice on his phone, he did not attend the call as he slept. At about 12.30
hours A1 called him and informed that his sister was hanging in the
upstairs. Immediately he had gone to his sister’s house but the accused
and his mother was not found in the house. His sister was found
hanging, the children were crying in the house. Immediately he
contacted his father and informed him about the same. His father and
other relatives had come to the house at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, he
had lodged a complaint. He was enquired by the Sub-Collector and the
Inspector of Police. His sister committed suicide due to the harassment
meter out to her by her husband and other accused. A1 sold her jewels,
assaulted her and treated her with cruelty, also demanded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. His father died on 10.05.2015. His sisters'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
children are staying with him. Recently, A1 contacted him over phone
and threatened him.
(iv) P.W.2, Tmt.Malliga, mother of the deceased also
corroborated the evidence of PW1. P.W.3, Ms.Ramona Jeyamalar, sister
of the deceased also supported the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
(v) PW4, PW5, PW6 are neighbours of deceased did not
supported the prosecution case, turned hostile, cross examined by the
prosecution
(vi) P.W.7, Thiru.Jeyaselvan deposed about the preparation
of observation Mahazar and rough sketch by the investigating officer
(vii) P.W.8 Thiru.Muthaiah, neighbour of the deceased
deposed that deceased compelled the accused to register the house of A1
in her favour, since A1 refused to execute a deed in favour of the
deceased, both had problem. He is not known the real cause of death of
the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
(viii) P.W.9 Thiru.Ramachandran did not support the
prosecution case and turned hostile
(ix) P.W.10, Fr.Abraham Selvaraj deposed about the
marriage between A1 and the deceased, he produced the Marriage
Registration Certificate Ex.P.5
(x) P.W.11 Dr.Sridharan deposed about the postmortem, and
injuries sustained by the deceased, he stated that there is no poison
substance found in the viscera.
(xi) P.W.13, Thiru.Asokan, Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu
Mercantile Bank Ltd., deposed that deceased Raksha Rajabai pledged 36
gms of gold jewels and borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- as loan. The letter
issued by him is marked as Ex.P.9.
(xii) P.W.14 Thiru.Ramanathan, Special Sub Inspector of
Police spoke about the postmortem, handing over of viscera, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
recovered the dresses from the dead body of deceased.
(xiii) P.W.15, Tmt.Judy, Inspector of Police Valliyoor All
Women Police Station stated that deceased lodged a complaint against
A1 about the dowry demand, pledging her jewels for housing loan, and
also stated that she was chased from her matrimonial home. On receipt of
the complaint, both the husband and wife were summoned to the Police
station and counselling them, A1 admitted guilt and assured that he
would not commit the mistake again. The deceaed Raksha Rajabai also
accepted and requested to not to take any action against her
complaint/statement and therefore, it was recorded. The complaint was
closed. Subsequently, she learnt that she committed suicide on
13.02.2013.
(xiv) P.W.16, Thiru.Manoj Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police
deposed about the preparation of FIR and handing over the same to the
Revenue Divisional Officer and copies to the Valliyoor Deputy
Superintendent of Police for appropriate action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
(xv) P.W.17 Tmt.Paji Payaraj Rohini Ramdoss, Sub
Collector, Cheran Mahadevi, deposed about the inquest on the dead body
and preliminary investigation. Based on enquiry she opined that due to
dowry harassment the deceased would have committed suicide.
(xvi) P.W.18, Thiru.Stanly Jones, Deputy Superintendent of
Police deposed about the investigation, arrest, confession, recovery and
laying of final charge sheet.
22. The marriage between A1 and deceased was solemnized
on 07.09.2009. Ex.P5, the marriage certificate issued by the Church
Authority proved the same. The charge against A1 is that he demanded
money and also cruelly treated the victim, Tmt.Raksha Rajabai. Ex.P1 is
the complaint lodged by the deceased Raksha Rajabai on 25.06.2012 in
the Valliyoor All Women Police Station, in which, she clearly stated that
at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the
accused family. Thereafter, 50 sovereign gold jewels and sridhana
articles worth about Rs.75,000/- were provided to the deceased for her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
marriage. Within two months from the date of marriage, A1 taken her
jewels and pledged the same in Muthoot Bank, thereafter, he assaulted
her. He further demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and chased her parental
home. Again, he came to her house on 26.06.2012 and created problem,
continuously demanding money.
23. P.W.15 Tmt.Judi, Inspector of Police, clearly stated that
the deceased women had lodged the above complaint which was
registered in CSR No.213/12. She further stated that she called both
husband and wife and counselled them. At that time, A1 admitted his
wrong and assured that he would not create any problem in future, and
the deceased, Raksha Rajabai also consented to go with her husband. She
closed the file. The above complaint shows that the victim was subject to
cruelty in the hands of the accused by demanding dowry.
24. Ex.P2 is the complaint given by the brother of the
deceased in which, he has not stated anything about the demand of
dowry, but it was contended that accused used to consume alcohol, and
therefore both had problem. His sister was staying in their house, the
accused came and taken her to his house on 31.01.2013. In the midnight
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
at about 12.50 hours A1 contacted and informed him that she died due to
hanging.
25. In his chief examination, he had elaborately stated about
the cruelty meted out to his sister, his evidence was corroborated by
P.W.2-mother of the deceased, P,W,3 sister of the deceased.
26. P.W.17 Tmt.Pajikarai Rohini Ramdas, Sub Collector
conducted inquest on the dead body on 01.02.2013, she examined P.W.1,
P.W.2, neighbours, Selvi, Gajendran, Karnan, Mani, Shanthi and
Panchayadhars Selvakumar, Jayaraj, Muthuraman Paulmani and Rajan.
The inquest report has been marked as Ex.P 11. In the statement, P.W1
and P.W.2 clearly stated that the accused demanded money and harassed
her. He was in the habit of consuming alcohol roaming around the
village without any employment. On the date of occurrence also, they
had a problem. Apart from the relative, independent witness who were,
neighbours also stated that the accused created problem with the
deceased by demanding money, he used to consume alcohol and cruelly
treated the victim. Based on their evidence, the Sub Collector clearly
stated that the accused quarrelled with his wife after consuming alcohol
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
and demanded money, and the reason for the death may be due to
demand of dowry. She further stated in her report that the accused
absconded soon after the incident.
27. A1 was arrested on the next day of the occurrence i.e., on
02.02.2013 at about 7.30 PM by the Investigating Officer P.W.18. Ex.P9
is the letter issued by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, showing that
the deceased pledged her chain 36 gms. for a sum of Rs.65,000/- on
10.09.2012. In Ex.P1 complaint the deceased categorically stated that
the accused repeatedly demanded money. The Inspector of Police, All
Women Police Station, Valliyoor, clearly stated that she called both of
them and A1 admitted his wrong and assured that he would not repeat the
same, which was admitted by the deceased. P.W.9 shows that three
months after the complaint, pledged her jewels for a sum of Rs.65,000/-.
On 10.09.2012, the deceased remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the
payment of the loan, which proves that the deceased after pledging her
jewels through Ex.P9 repaid the loan borrowed by the accused on the
same day. Ex.P14 shows the details of the loan derived by the accused
from BWDA Finance Limited at Panagudi shows that the accused
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the above Finance Limited on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
02.06.2011 by mortgaging the property situated in survey No.441 /3B3.
Therefore, the demand of dowry by the accused and harassment meted
out to the deceased was established by the prosecution.
28. As per the appellant's counsel, it is the deceased alone
compelled the accused to transfer the property in her favour. However,
the evidence proved that the accused mortgaged the property for which
she had pledged her jewels and paid the instalment. It infers from the
above that because of the insistence of the accused, the deceased pledged
her jewels, out of the said money, she paid a loan borrowed by the
accused. If the accused is capable of spending money, he need not make
her to pledge her jewel.
29. Further, PW1 was examined on 03.05.2016 and
22.09.2016 but he was cross-examined only on 04.07.2018 one year and
eight months from the date chief examination. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were
examined on 16.11.2016, cross-examined only on 29.06.2018. During
cross-examination, the only defence put forth by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the deceased kept on insisting the accused to transfer
his property in her favour and due to stomach ache, she committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
suicide for which there is no proof.
30. Further, the conduct of the family members of the
accused assumes importance. Soon after the occurrence, the accused did
not make any complaint, PW1, brother of the deceased alone lodged the
first information report, based on the FIR investigation commenced.
31. The RDO who had conducted the inquest, examined
several witnesses and they stated before her that, the accused did not go
for a job and created problem with the deceased by demanding money,
and cruelly treated her. Even the learned counsel for the appellant
admitted that the accused was not employed (during cross examination of
P.W.2). Therefore, she opined that the deceased may commit suicide due
to the demand of dowry and harassment.
32. The cogent evidence of the P.W.1 to P.W.3, supported by
the inquest report, clearly proves that the accused demanded money and
harassed the deceased. P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly stated that due to constant
harassment of the accused, previously she attempted to commit suicide,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
but due to the timely intervention and treatment, she survived.
33. Apart from the above the deceased, herself complained
about the accused that the accused harassed her and cruelly treated her, in
Ex.P1.
34. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that
except PW1 to PW3, no other independent witnesses supported the
prosecution version. The prosecution indeed examined several witnesses
other than family members who were residing in the neighbourhood.
35. We cannot disbelieve the statement of PW1 to PW3, who
are the family members.
36.The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position
to prove that the evidence of the above witnesses is unreliable.
Neighbours' testimony can indeed be helpful, in proving cruelty and
dowry harassment, the lack of neighbours' statements does not
automatically make the prosecution case, weak or fatal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
37. In the judgement rendered in Ilangovan versus the State
of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police reported in 2020(10), SCC
533 held that ‘it is settled law that testimony of related or an interested
witness can be taken into consideration after scrutinizing such evidence
that there is nothing available to disbelieve their evidence.'
38. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents
proved that the deceased was treated with cruelty by her husband, A1,
who harassed her continuously by demanding dowry, soon before the
death, she was subject to harassment, and induced to commit suicide.
Despite this, the cruelty meted out to her, she attempted to commit
suicide previously, but the family members saved her. However, the
accused did not stop, continuously treated her with cruelty and also
demanded money without going to any employment, the victim did not
tolerate, the continuous cruelty and harassment decided to end her life,
and committed suicide, the accused without trying to save her life,
absconded from the place of occurrence. Till now the children are in the
custody of the family members of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
39. On careful perusal of entire records, we conclude that
there is no material available to interfere with the judgment of the trial
Court. The Criminal Appeal has no merit and hence, the Criminal Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
40. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and
the judgment passed in S.C.No.144 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, dated 29.12.2020 is hereby confirmed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (R.P., J.)
26.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Valliyoor Sub Division,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
