Madras High Court
Prabu Adhithan @ Rakki vs State Rep. By on 2 June, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.A. No.470 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2015
---
1. Prabu Adhithan @ Rakki
2. Karthikeyan
3. Sathyabama
4. Anandavel .. Appellants
Versus
State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Thiruppur District.
(Crime No.17/2012) .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., praying to call
for the records relating to the sentence and conviction passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District in S.C.No.63 of
2013 dated 02.07.2015.
For Appellants : Mr. S. Shankar
For Respondent : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5
seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 02.07.2015 in S.C. No. 63 of 2013 by
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Criminal
Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The deceased Brahma Sakthi was married to the first Accused.
The first Accused is the son of the second Accused. The third Accused is the
brother of first Accused. The fourth Accused is the sister of the first Accused.
The fifth Accused is the husband of the fourth Accused and brother-in-law of
the first Accused. Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 are residing in Siddhanayakkanpalayam
Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. The deceased Brahma Sakthi was
the younger daughter of the Complainant/P.W-1 and P.W-2.
2.2. According to the Prosecution, P.W-1 and P.W-2 have four sons
and two daughters. P.W-3 is the elder daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 who was
married to P.W-4/Muthumalai. The marriage of the deceased/Brahma Sakthi
was arranged through a common friend Kannan Vathiyar, who is acquainted
with both families. At the time of their betrothal, the family of the Accused
demanded 25 sovereigns of gold jewellery, household articles and Rs.50,000/-
cash. The Complainant/P.W-1 expressed his inability to meet out the demands.
The family of the Accused sent a word to the Complainant that they are not
satisfied with the offer. Therefore, Kannan Vathiyar informed P.W-1 that he
will sort it out. Accordingly, the betrothal ceremony was held by which it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
agreed that instead of 25 sovereigns, the parents of the deceased Brahma
Sakthi will give her 19 of sovereigns of jewellery, household articles and
Rs.50,000/-. On the date of betrothal, the entire jewellery and cash was paid to
the family of the Accused. Accordingly, the marriage was performed on
01.09.2011 in Tiruchendur Temple at Arumuganeri. It was an arranged
marriage. After marriage, the deceased Brahma Sakthi went to live with her
husband in the matrimonial home in a joint family. After marriage, the parents
of the husband started to irritate her claiming that she should not touch any of
the household articles and she should work as a maid servant in their family.
The deceased was also scolded by stating that her father should have married
her to a person of their status and not to the first Accused. Thus, the deceased
was subjected to harassment in many forms and manifestations. Further, the
Accused also ill-treated the deceased for bringing less dowry. After the
marriage, as per the custom prevailing in the community of the Accused and
the Complainant, P.W-1 and P.W-2 invited the Accused and his family
members for a feast. At that time, the youngest daughter of P.W-1 informed
that first Accused hit the deceased at the time when they were invited for a
dinner. P.W-2 and P.W-3/mother and elder sister of the deceased Brahma
Sakthi consoled her that she had to adjust with the family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
2.3. On 13.01.2012 since it was a first Pongal for the newly married
couple, as per the customs prevailing among the family of the bride, P.W-1 to
P.W-4 went to the residence of the Accused with Pongal Seer. They reached
the house of the Accused on 14.01.2012 with fruits, sweets and household
articles. When those articles were presented in the house of the Accused, the
father-in-law of the deceased had kicked the Pongal Seer and insulted the
family members of the deceased thereby offended the deceased. On seeing
this, P.W-2 expressed her helplessness stating that they had provided whatever
is affordable to them for which the fourth Accused alleged to have replied that
the deceased should have given in marriage to a family of their status and not
in their family. The youngest daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 also protested and
supported her family for which the fifth Accused/husband of the fourth
Accused and the son-in-law of the second Accused provoked the first Accused
that she is not respecting the in-laws and she should be dealt with
appropriately. On such provocative words, first Accused slapped on her face.
Notwithstanding the same, P.W-1 and P.W-2 only requested the deceased to
adjust with the family and returned home.
2.4. On 15.01.2012, the deceased informed her parents that she is
being continuously harassed for not bringing enough dowry and not allowing
her to use household articles. On the same day evening i.e., 15.01.2012, P.W-1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
received a phone call on his mobile that a person residing nearby the house of
the Accused informed that the deceased consumed cow dung powder in the
early morning hours. On hearing such news, P.W-1 to P.W-4 rushed to
Coimbatore but they could not meet the Accused persons. On enquiry, they
found that the body of the deceased was in the morgue. P.W-1 gave a
complaint under Ex.P-1 to the Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, based on
which, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police
Station registered a case in Crime No. 17/2012 for the offence under Section
304 (b) of IPC. The copies of the Complaint under Ex.P-1 and FIR under
Ex.P-11 were sent to the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer as
the deceased died within four months of marriage. The Copies of the
complaint and First Information Report were also sent to the Judicial
Magistrate and higher officials of the Police Department, including the
Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam and the Deputy Superintendent of
Police/P.W-10. The Executive Magistrate/P.W-7/Santha Kumar conducted
enquiry, enquired the parents of the deceased, elder sister of the deceased and
her husband and recorded their statements. He also enquired the Accused and
their neighbours and recorded their statements as well. He had conducted
inquest over the body of the deceased in the mortuary of the Government
Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. He had also recorded the statement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
witnesses as Panchayatdars/Ramesh, Arumugam, Deva, Sadasivam and
Sampath Kumar who are neighbours of deceased. He concluded his enquiry
and issued inquest report under Ex.P-9 and enquiry report under Ex.P-10.
2.5 As per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore/P.W-7 under Ex.P-10, the parents and sister of the deceased
claimed that the deceased died due to the harassment meted out to her for
demand of dowry. Whereas, the Panchayatdars/neighbours of the Accused
claimed that it was not a dowry harassment but something else. P.W-7 had
therefore directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry out further
probe and proceed with the investigation.
2.6 On receipt of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
investigation was conducted by P.W-9/Deputy Superintendent of Police,
during which he recorded the statement of the parents and elder sister of the
deceased as also the husband of elder sister of the deceased. He had also
recorded the statement of Doctor who conducted post-mortem over the body of
the deceased as also the Revenue Divisional Officer who conducted inquest
over the body of the deceased. He also enquired the Panchayatdars, who
assisted the Revenue Divisional Officer in conducting enquiry. On completion
of the investigation, P.W-9 arrested the Accused. As P.W-9 was transferred, his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
successor P.W- 10 took up further investigation. After completing the
investigation, P.W-10 obtained the opinion of the Deputy Director of
Prosecution and laid the final report against the Accused for the offence under
Section 304 (b) of IPC.
2.7. The learned Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, on receipt of the final
report taken cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 304(b) of
IPC in S.C. No. 63 of 2013 and issued summons to the Accused. On
appearance of the Accused, copies of the prosecution documents were
furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
2.8. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for
the Accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur,
framed charges under Section 304 (b) of IPC, explained the charges to the
Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5. The Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
Therefore, trial was ordered.
2.9. To prove the charges, Prosecution had examined P.W-1 to P.W-10
and marked documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. On completion of
Prosecution Witnesses, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
regarding the incriminating materials available through the witnesses P.W-1 to
P.W-10 and documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. The Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
denied the incriminating evidence against them. However, the Accused 1, 2, 4
& 5 had not examined any witnesses to rebut the charges framed against them.
2.10. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Counsel for the Appellants, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila
Court, Tiruppur by Judgment dated 02.07.2015 acquitted Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5
from the charges under Section 304(b) of IPC, but convicted them for the
offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years
of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default, to
undergo three months of simple imprisonment. The period of detention
already undergone by the Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 were ordered to be set off under
section 428 of Cr.P.C., It was also directed that the fine imposed on the
Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 were treated as compensation under Section 357 of IPC to
be paid to the family of the victim.
2.11. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, the Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5
have preferred this Appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that as per the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, the
claim of dowry harassment has not been proved during trial. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Accused for the grave charge under
Section 304 (b) of IPC. At the same time, without any materials, the Trial
Court convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants drew the attention of this
Court to the depositions of P.W-1 to P.W-4 who are none other than the father,
mother, elder sister and husband of the elder sister of the deceased. The rest of
the witnesses did not support the claim of the Prosecution. P.W-1 to P.W-4 are
relatives of the deceased and except their interested testimony, no other
independent witness is available to convict the Appellants. Except the official
witnesses, no other witness had supported the claim of the parents and
relatives of the deceased. What had been claimed by them in their evidence
had not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge to convict them under
Section 304(b) of IPC. At the same time, the Appellants were convicted for the
offence under Section 498-A for which there was no charge at all framed. If
the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4 is assessed, there is no incriminating material
to convict the Appellants for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. While
so, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the Appellants instead
of convicting them for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
5. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also invited the attention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
of this Court to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W-7 under
Ex.P-9 in Column No.16 which is extracted hereunder:-
“gpukrf;jprhzpgg; t[lu; Foj;j jfty; bjupe;J g";rhaj;jhu;
kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;wnghJ kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;j mtuJ fztuplk;
tprhupjj; nghJ gpukrf;jpfF
; K:rR; j;jpzuy; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. mjw;fhd rpfpr;ir
mspjJ ; te;jjhft[k;. rk;gtk; ele;j md;W K:r;Rj;jpzwy; fhuzkhf
rhzpg;gt[lu; Foj;J fhuzkhf ,we;Jtpll; jhft[k; bjuptpjj; jhf Twpdhu;fs;/
mjd; fhuzkhf gpukrf;jp ,wg;ghdJ Vw;gl;oUf;fyhk; vd;W bjuptpj;jdu;/
nkYk; mtuJ ,wg;ghdJ vd;d fhuzj;jpwf; hf Vw;gl;lJ vd;gJ bjupahJ
vd;wdu;. mtuJ fztu; TwpathW gpukrf;jpapd; ,wg;g[ Vw;gl;oUf;fyhk;
vd;wdu;/ tujl;riz bfhLik fhuzkhfnth my;yJ mtuJ fztu;
kw;Wk; fztu; tPll; hupd; Jd;g[Wj;jy; fhuzkhf Vw;gl;ljpy;iy vd;Wk;
Vnfhgpj;J bjuptpj;jdu;/”
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also invited the attention
of this Court to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W-7 under
Ex.P-10. The relevant portion reads as follows:-
“g";rhaj;jhu;fs; gpukrf;jp vd;d fhuzj;jpw;fhf rhzpgg; t[lu;
fiuj;J Foj;jhu; vd bjupatpy;iy vd;Wk;. ,Ug;gpDk;; gpukrf;jp fztu;
bjuptpj;jthW ,Uf;fyhk; vd v';fSf;F bjupatUfpwJ/ ,Ug;gpDk;
gpukrf;jp ,wg;ghdJ tujl;riz bfhLik my;yJ fztu;. fztu; tPll; hupd;
Jd;g[wj;jy; fhuzkhf Vw;gl;ljpyi
; y vd Vnfhgpj;J fUj;J
bjuptpj;Js;sdu;/”
7. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the report of
Revenue Divisional Officer and had it been considered, the Appellants would
not have been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks to set aside the
Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
Mahila Court, Tiruppur in S.C.No.63 of 2013, dated 02.07.2015.
8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the
Appellants invited the attention of this Court to the following rulings:-
8.1. In Crl.A.No.656 of 2005 in the case of Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi Vs.
State of U.P . the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
“12. So far the judicial pronouncements show a consistent trend that
wherever an Accused is charged with a grave offence, he can be punished
for a less grave offence finally, if the grave offence is not proved. For
example, a person charged with an offence under Section 302 of the IPC
may finally be convicted only for an offence under Section 304 Part II
where the prescribed punishment is lesser and the consequences of
conviction are less serious in comparison to a conviction under Section
302. But even in those cases, the Court has to be cautious while examining
whether the ingredients of the offences are independently satisfied. If the
ingredients even of a lesser offence are not satisfied then it may be difficult
in a given case for the court to convict the person for an offence of a less
grave nature. There can be cases where it may not be possible at all to
punish a person of a less grave offence if its ingredients are completely
different and distinct from the grave offence. To deal with this aspect
illustratively, one could say that a person who is charged with an offence
under Section 326 may not be liable to be convicted for an offence under
Section 406 IPC because their ingredients are entirely distinct, different
and have to be established by the prosecution on its own strength. In other
words, the Accused has to be charged with a grave offence which would
take within its ambit and scope the ingredients of a less grave offence. The
evidence led by the prosecution for a grave offence, thus, would cover an
offence of a less grave nature.
28. We may also make a reference to another three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of
Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 577] which was not noticed in the case of Dalbir
Singh (supra). In that case, the Accused initially had been charged with an
offence under Section 302 IPC but was convicted for an offence under
Section 304B IPC as according to the High Court there was no failure of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
justice. This Court found error in the judgment of the High Court
convicting the Accused of an offence under Section 304B as the Accused
was not put at notice of the adverse presumption that the Court is
statutorily bound to draw on satisfaction of two ingredients of Section 304-
B. Therefore, this Court remanded the matter. It also noticed the conflict of
views expressed in the cases of Lakhjit Singh (supra) and Sanagaraboina
Sreenu (supra) and mentioned that in `cognate offences', the main
ingredients are common and the one amongst them that is punishable with
a lesser sentence can be regarded as a minor offence. The Court, finding
that the ingredients of Sections 302 and 304B are different, held as follows:
"15. Section 222(1) of the Code deals with a case "when a person is
charged with an offence consisting of several particulars".
The section permits the court to convict the Accused "of the minor
offence, though he was not charged with it". Sub-section (2) deals with a
similar, but slightly different situation.
"222. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are
proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the
minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
36. At this stage, we may refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 S.C.
320] wherein the Accused after being charged for an offence under Section
396 IPC was finally convicted under Section 302 IPC. The Court in the said
Judgment held as under:
"15. It is, however, unnecessary to do so because in the facts and
circumstances of the present case the Appellants is liable to be
convicted of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code without
anything more. The charge under Section 396, Indian Penal Code
comprised of two ingredients:- (1) the commission of the dacoity, and
(2) the commission of the murder in so committing the dacoity. The first
ingredient was proved without any doubt and was not challenged by the
learned Counsel for the Appellants. The second ingredient also was
proved in any event as regards the commission of the murder because
the attention of the Accused was focused not only on the commission of
the offence while committing the dacoity but also on the individual part
which he took in the commission of that murder. So far as he was
concerned, he knew from the charge which was framed against him that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
he was sought to be made responsible not only for the commission of the
dacoity but also for the commission of the murder in committing such
dacoity. The evidence which was led on behalf of the prosecution
specifically implicated him and he was named by the prosecution
witnesses as the person who shot at Mendai while crossing the ditch of
the Pipra Farm. His examination under section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code also brought out that point specifically against him and
he was questioned in that behalf. Both the Courts below recorded their
concurrent findings of fact in regard to the part taken by the Appellants
in the commission of the murder of Mendai. Under these circumstances
it could not be urged that the Appellants could not be convicted of the
offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code if such a charge could be
made out against him (Vide our decision in Willie (William) Slaney v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl App No. 6 of 1955 D/- 31-10-1955 ( (S)
AIR 1956 SC 116) (F)"
8.2. In Crl.A.(MD).No.98 of 2015 in the case of K.Muthu Mariappan
Vs. The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station,
Tuticorin District this Court had observed as follows:-
“24. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as
per Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which deals with penetrative sexual
assault, it is a minor offence to that of aggravated penetrative sexual
assault, which is a major offence and therefore, it is not illegal to convict
the Accused under the said provision. In this regard, I may refer to Section
222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:-
"222. When offence proved included in offence charged-(1) When a
person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a
combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor
offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars
are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he
was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved
which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor
offence, although he is not charged with it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
(3). When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of
an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not
separately charged.
(4). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of
any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of
proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
8.3. In Crl.A.No.224 of 2006 in the case of Babu @ Stanley Jayin Vs.
State of Kerala. The High Court of Kerala has observed as follows:-
“18. Apart from the fact that there is want of evidence to show that
there is continuous acts of cruelty by the Accused on the victim, which was
likely to drive her to commit suicide or to endanger her life so as to attract
Section 498-A of IPC. The only allegation against the Accused is that he
asked the victim to get Rs.50,000/- from her house for doing house
surgency. There is no allegation that he had assaulted or ill-treated the
victim in any manner. If that be so, offence under Section 498-A of IPC
cannot stand.”
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently
objected to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and
submitted that the Trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, had arrived
at a conclusion that the grave charge under Section 294 (b) of IPC is not
attracted from the materials available before her. At the same time, even
though the charge is not framed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC,
the learned Sessions Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the newly married
woman committed suicide, unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by
her in-laws. What was the harassment meted out to her was spoken to by P.W-1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
to P.W-4, who heard the victim reporting to them about the abuses hurled
towards her. In cases of this nature, neighbours of the Accused where the
deceased was living in the joint family may not volunteer to remain as a
witness. Just because, neighbours of the Accused were not examined as
independent witness, it will not weaken the case of the Prosecution. The
deceased consumed cow dung powder which is a toxic chemical poisonous
substance. This would only indicate that she wanted to end her life to escape
from the harassment meted her by her in-laws.
10. Also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
husband of the deceased claimed that she was suffering from breathlessness,
unable to withstand due to consumption of poisonous substance. It is a ploy
by the Accused to escape from the culpability of crime. If what is stated by the
husband is true, he should have furnished the Doctor's prescription especially
when the deceased has been living with the Accused for atleast four months
from the date of marriage. However, there is nothing on record to show that
the deceased was given treatment for her breathing or respiratory issue till her
death. If what had been stated by the first Accused is true, he should have
entered the witness box and adduced rebuttal evidence rebutting the charges
framed by the Court under Section 304 (b) of IPC. None of the Accused had
entered the witness box and adduced rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the claim of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
Appellants is not bona fide that they were convicted for the lesser offence
while they were acquitted for a major offence.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that as per
Section 222 of Cr.P.C., the Court is well within its power to convict the
Accused, from the available materials even for lesser offence if the ingredients
for lesser offence is made out. In this case, from the deposition of P.W-1 to
P.W-4 it is clear that the deceased was subjected to dowry harassment. The
learned Sessions Judge also distinguished between the veracity of offence
under Sections 304(b) and 498-A of IPC and accordingly acquitted the
Appellants from the grave charge under Section 304(b) of IPC which warrants
punishment of not less than seven years and may include life sentence.
However, on the same set of evidence, the Appellants were convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. There are sufficient
materials made available in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W-7
under Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 wherein he had clearly stated that even though
demand for dowry is not ruled out, the deceased might have ended her life due
to the harassment meted out to her by the Appellants. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that the Judgment of conviction
recorded by the Trial Court is not perverse and it does not call for any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of this Appeal.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the Judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed in
S.C.No.63 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District, is to be set aside?
12. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. Perused the
deposition of P.W-1 to P.W-10, documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 as well as
the Judgment dated 02.07.2015 of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court in S.C.No.63 of 2013.
13. On perusal of the depositions of P.W-1 to P.W-4, at the outset, this
Court found that they are cogent, natural and corroborative of each other.
There is nothing that could discredit the testimony of P.W-1 to P.W-4. As
pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, merely because they
are interested witnesses, their evidence need not be discarded. They are
natural witnesses and are victims of harassment meted out to the deceased,
who is none other than their daughter or sister as the case may be. The
deceased, being a young married girl, could have naturally shared the abuses
meted out to her only with their family members such as mother or sister, leave
alone the father. On the other hand, the deceased may not have shared the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
harassment meted out to her to the neighbours inasmuch as she had joined the
family of the Appellants/Accused just four months ago. In view of such a
short period, the deceased may not have either acquainted with the neighbours
or would not have been emboldened to share her ordeal with them given the
fact that they are acquainted with the Appellants for a longer period than her
acquaintance with them. While so, the report of the Revenue Divisional
Officer on the basis of the statement of the neighbours of the Appellants,
cannot have any significance. The family members are always competent to
depose in this case. However, it is for the Court to infer that their testimony is
trustworthy and pass the test of judicial scrutiny. If the deposition is of
sterling quality, then it can be accepted and a conviction may be recorded
against the Accused-Appellants. In other words, the testimony of the
interested witnesses is always not unreliable and it has to be put to the litmus
test before being relied. As parents and elder sister and her husband/PW-1 to
P.W-4, the deceased will naturally confide with them and will share her
happiness as well as pain. It is a natural phenomenon where a newly wedded
woman, would first share her happiness, joy or sorrow only with her mother or
sister and therefore, they would get to know something or everything about the
matrimonial life of the daughter or sister as the case may be. They will gain
first-hand information about their daughter given in marriage and whether she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
is happy or not.
14. In this case, just four months before, the deceased came to the
matrimonial life. Her journey was short-lived due to harassment caused by the
Appellants/Accused. They had only seen the shortcoming in the materials
brought by her and they did not see the deceased as a human being. Such
ordeal undergone by the deceased had been clearly spoken to by P.W-1 to P.W-
4 in this case. P.W-1 to P.W-4 in their deposition have also referred to a
particular instance that had taken place on the eve of Pongal padi, when the
second Accused/father of first Accused alleged to have kicked the presents
given to the Appellants/Accused. When the family members were ill-treated
or in any manner not greeted warmly, it would cause trauma to the daughter,
who is left to the mercy and/or custody of her in-laws. The same thing would
have happened to the deceased in this case when the second Accused kicked
and/or rejected the presents given by the father of the deceased, befitting his
capacity. This might have triggered and aggravated her to take the extreme
step later. Even otherwise, assuming that the Appellants/Accused did not
harass the deceased, from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it can be
inferred that she was not happy after her marriage with the first Accused, for
some reason. From the statement of the prosecution witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-
4, it could only be inferred that all was not well for the deceased after her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
marriage with the first Accused and she was only subjected to ill-treatment and
harassment in all forms and manifestations. If not, the deceased would not
have taken the extreme decision to leave this world to take shelter in an
unknown territory.
15. On perusal of the Complaint under Ex.P-1, naturally, the Court
ought to have framed or altered charges at the initial stage. After conclusion
of trial, the Court cannot frame charges. If additional charge (s) is/are to be
framed, the Accused have to be summoned once again and they must be
afforded an opportunity to repudiate such additional charge. However, as per
Section 222 of Cr.P.C., if the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are
elements of material evidence to prove the offence under Section 498A of IPC,
within the charge framed against the Appellants for the offence under Section
304(b) of IPC, then, it is well open to the Court to base a conviction against
the Appellants for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Even for the graver
offence, if they are repeated, the Court is within its discretion to convict the
Accused for a lesser charge for which, a separate charge need not be framed.
The ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the learned Counsel for the
Appellants in Rafi's case also indicates the same only. It is a case where the
Accused was tried for the offence under Section 396 of IPC for dacoity.
However, on appreciation of the material evidence, there are enough evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
to prove the offence of dacoity along with murder. The trial Court therefore
acquitted the Accused for the offence of dacoity, but convicted him for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC. The same yardstick applies to the facts of
this case where the Trial Court, acquitted the Appellants for the offence under
Section 304(b) of IPC but convicted them for the offence under Section 498A
of IPC. The fact that the deceased consumed cow dung powder to end her life
is an inherent indication of the fact that she was subjected to abuse, harassment
and/or ill treatment by the Appellants.
16. While assessing the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge arrived
at a conclusion that there was no incriminating material to show that bodily
injury was caused to the deceased by the Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5. Therefore, she
had acquitted them from the grave charge under Section 304 (b) of IPC.
Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that
having acquitted them for the offence under Section 304 (b) of IPC, the
learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tirupur ought not to have
convicted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot at all be accepted.
17. In this case, there is no evidence before the trial Court that the
Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 having caused bodily injury on the deceased resulting in
her death. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, a newly married
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
woman, consumed cow dung powder which is a chemical substance tend to
endanger and cause bodily harm. As per the final report under Ex.P-4 issued
by P.W-6 Dr.Saravanan who performed autopsy on the body of the deceased,
the deceased died only due to consumption of poisonous substance and there
are no bodily injury suffered by her.
18. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
charge for the offence under 304(b) of IPC gives a presumption against the
Accused and the Court has to draw adverse inference when they did not let in
rebuttal evidence. In the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Ex.P-
9 and Ex.P-10, it is stated that the Panchayatdars (neighbours) clearly stated
that the death was not due to dowry harassment whereas the parents of the
deceased had claimed it was a dowry harassment. The Revenue Divisional
Officer had fairly reported both views and directed the Deputy Superintendent
of Police to proceed further with a probe according to law. The Investigation
Officer/P.W-9 and his successor P.W-10 on the basis of the investigation
conducted had arrived at a conclusion that death of the newly married woman
within four months of the marriage was the result of continuous harassment
she faced in the house of her in-laws/Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5. Therefore, the
Investigation Officer laid the final report for the charge under Section 304(b)
of IPC alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
19. The learned Counsel for the Appellants relying on the ruling of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.224 of 2006 in the case of Babu @
Stanley Jayin Vs. State of Kerala submitted that the Appellants before the
Kerala High Court was a Doctor by profession. The deceased in that case was
a nurse who was working in the hospital and they were in love with each other.
It was stated that both belong to different communities. While the deceased
Sowmya Danya belong to Nair community, the Appellants/Accused belong to
Christian community. Therefore, there was objection from both families. Her
relatives wanted her to get back to their home but she did not go with them and
stayed in the house along with the Accused. When there was talk for marriage,
the Accused wanted Rs.50,000/- for his house surgeon course expenses. At this
stage, the deceased committed suicide. The relatives of the deceased gave a
complaint that she committed self-immolation unable to bear the harassment
meted out to her by the Accused. On appreciation of evidence, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Accused. Aggrieved by the same, he
had preferred the Appeal. In the Appeal, the learned Judge of Kerala High
Court acquitted him that the charge of demanding Rs.50,000/- is not towards
dowry and he wanted this amount for his house surgeon course. Accordingly
the learned Judge of Kerala High Court acquitted the Accused therein from the
charge under Section 498-A of IPC. However, it was held that they were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
husband and wife and therefore the offence under 498-A of IPC is not
attracted. The facts of the reported ruling will not be applicable to the facts of
this case. Here the marriage was performed and the first Accused and the
deceased lived as husband and wife along with other Accused from the
inception of marriage. There is also evidence that the Accused demanded 25
sovereigns of jewellery and Rs.50,000/- along with household articles even at
the time of betrothal. However, after negotiation, in the presence of the
common friend, both the families settled for 19 sovereigns. Therefore, it can
be safely presumed that from the date of entering the matrimonial home, the
deceased was harassed either directly or indirectly
20. Further, when P.W-2 along with P.W-1 and his daughter went to
the house of the deceased to present pongal seer, the second Accused kicked
them and humiliated the family members. When this was protested by the
daughter of P.W-1, the fifth Accused, who is the brother-in-law of the first
Accused, instigated the first Accused by saying that she is not respecting the
husband and in-laws. On such provocation, the first Accused slapped her and
this also would be the starting point for the deceased to take away her life due
to the humiliation subjected to her family members and her helplessness to
prevent such humiliation. This was spoken to by P.W-2 mother of the
deceased, P.W-3 elder sister of the deceased and P.W-4 husband of the elder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
sister of the deceased who have witnessed the incident. Any newly married
woman, when faces hostility in her in-laws house is given moral courage by
her parents and near and dear ones to adjust to the circumstances and tolerate
it. If they support the newly married girl and take her back with them, they are
aware of the consequences resulting in the newly married girl losing
confidence to live happily in the matrimonial home.
21. In the light of the above discussions, the point for consideration is
answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants/Accused.
The Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Tiruppur District in S.C.No.63 of 2013, dated 02.07.2015 is found proper
which does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same is to be
confirmed.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District in
S.C.No.63 of 2013 dated 02.07.2015 is confirmed. The learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District is directed to issue warrant
to secure the Accused in order to undergo the period of sentence imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
The Respondent Police is directed to secure the Accused and produce
him before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur
District.
02.06.2025
dh
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Tiruppur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Tiruppur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
dh
Judgment in
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm )
