Madras High Court
Unknown vs M.Suresh on 14 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.622 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.622 of 2018
State rep. by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
(Thirupapuliyur Police Station
Crime No.576 of 2011) ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Suresh
2.M.Sohanlal ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A2 in S.C.No.10
of 2012 dated 10.02.2016 on the file of the learned District Mahalir
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District and convict the respondents/A1 and A2
for the offences committed by them under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC.
For Appellant : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Assisted by Ms.Harshana.T
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kumar Talreja
for Mr.P.Veeranarayanan
Page No.1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
Crl.A.No.622 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in
S.C.No.10 of 2012 dated 10.02.2016 delivered by the learned District
Mahalir Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District.
2.The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that the respondents are
brothers, native of Rajasthan, they came to Cuddalore and running a pawn
broker shop in K.N.Pettai, Cuddalote District. The first respondent married
Meera/deceased in the year 1995 and they have two children. The first
respondent brought his wife and children to Cuddalore in the year 2001 and
residing at No.88, Sudhakar Nagar, Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore District. His
two sons were studying in C.K School, Cuddalore. The first respondent was
leading a happy life with his wife and children. His wife was suffering from
severe headache and he took her to Doctor for treatment. On 05.08.2011 at
about 9.45 a.m., after sending his children to school and having his
breakfast, the first respondent went to his shop and when he came back for
lunch, he found the door locked and his wife not responded to the Calling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
Bell. Thereafter he called his wife through her mobile phone but she had
not responded. The first respondent went around the house and peeped
through the window, he saw his wife hanging in the bedroom by a nylon
rope. The first respondent informed to his neighbours and relatives and
rushed to the Police Station, lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.576
of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. registered by PW16, who registered
FIR/Ex.P5 and sent a copy to the Sub-Collector and to the Sub-
Inspector/PW17, who took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence
on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P1
and rough sketch/Ex.P6 in the presence of witnesses, examined the
witnesses present in the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest.
Thereafter PW18/Inspector of Police took up investigation on 27.08.2011,
examined the father/PW1 and brother/PW2 of the deceased along with her
uncle/PW15 since PW1 and PW2 not conversant with Tamil. PW15 though
a native of Rajasthan was doing business in Chennai, he was able to speak
and understand Tamil, in his presence statements recorded and thereafter,
case was altered to offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC by alteration
report/Ex.P8. After the inquest, the body was sent to Postmortem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
PW13/Postmortem Doctor conducted Postmortem and gave the postmortem
report/Ex.P4. The Inspector sent the viscera and hyoid bone for forensic
examination and the reports/Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 received. In this case, PW1
and PW2 are the father and brother of the deceased Meera, who made
specific complaint that when the body was brought to Rajasthan for
cremation, some injuries were found on the body and the first respondent
was unable to give any answer and further in a hurried manner, cremation
conducted in the first respondent's native Village. Further, the complaint is
that the deceased Meera when she came to Rajathan for delivery for her
second son, she underwent Sterilization without the knowledge of the first
respondent and she also complained that the first respondent was having
illicit relationship with the second respondent's wife and she was always
abused and hit by both the respondents for no reason. The deceased was
always in pain, sufferings and ill-treated which she informed to her
father/PW1, brother/PW2 and mother.
3.After PW1 and PW2 came to Cuddalore, they went to
Thirupapuliyur Police Station, asked for FIR, inquest report and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
documents which was not furnished. Thereafter, they went to Government
Hospital, Cuddalore, asking for postmortem report and further, PW1 had
given representation to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Later, they received the postmortem report
confirming injuries on the deceased but first respondent would give
explanation. PW1 filed a petition seeking transfer of investigation to
CBCID but when the petition was taken up for consideration, it was
reported that charge sheet already filed before the concerned Court. Hence
the petition was dismissed with a liberty to approach the Lower Court.
Thereafter, PW1 filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking
further investigation which was again dismissed, against which, he filed a
revision petition before this Court and this Court dismissed the same. It is
also seen that the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to
examine five additional witnesses, which was again dismissed. The Trial
Court not considered all these aspects and found that there were
contradictions and exaggerations in the evidence of the witnesses, further
the relatives/PW3 not stated anything about any harassment, PW5 to
PW11/neighbours not deposed about any cruelty. The other witnesses are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
official witnesses. Primarily PW1, PW2 and PW15 are the relatives, who
deposed against the respondents, but Trial Court finding exaggerations and
contradictions came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the
case beyond all reasonable doubt, giving benefit of doubt acquitted the
respondents. During trial, PW1 to PW18 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 on
the side of the prosecution. Ex.D1/photostat copy of Crl.R.C.No.967 of
2012 and Ex.C1/affidavit filed by PW1 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in
S.C.No.10 of 2012 marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted
the respondents.
4.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that
the Trial Court failed to consider the case of the prosecution in a holistic
manner. In this case, the admitted position is that the marriage between the
first respondent and the deceased took place in the year 1995. Thereafter,
they were living in Rajasthan for 2 to 3 years. The respondents 1 and 2 are
brothers, running a pawn broker shop in K.N.Pettai, Cuddalore District and
they were living together. The first respondent brought his wife and
children to Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore in the year 2001 and his two children
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
studying in C.K.School, Cuddalore. In this case, complaint was lodged by
the first respondent informing that his wife committed suicide by hanging
on 05.08.2011 and the reason given is that his wife was suffering from
severe headache and stomach pain and due to unbearable pain she might
have committed suicide. The specific complaint of father and brother of the
deceased, namely, PW1 and PW2 is that after marriage, the deceased and
the first respondent were living happily in Rajasthan for some time.
Thereafter, they shifted to Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore District. PW1's
daughter came to Rajasthan for delivery of her second son, at that time, she
complained about the harassment and physical assault by both respondents.
Further, she made specific complaint about the illicit relationship between
the first respondent and second respondent's wife. Though the parents and
brother of the deceased questioned the conduct of the first respondent, he
kept quiet. Even the uncle of the deceased questioned and informed about
the illicit relationship to the respondents' father, but first respondent not
changed his behaviour. The deceased being a devoted wife considering the
education and welfare of her children, despite the humiliation, came back
and joined the matrimonial home and she regularly speak with her father,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
brother and mother, complaining the sufferings, humiliation and physical
assault. PW2 gave the mobile number of the deceased to the Police and
confirmed the telephonic conversation but no call details collected in this
case and there have been some laxity in the investigation. The Investigating
Officer not conducted the investigation as per the established procedure.
The neighbours examined not stated about the cruelty or harassment. The
Trial Court failed to consider that the cruelty and humiliation subjected to a
wife by the husband or in-laws is within the four corners of the house and
naturally not in public view. This has been given undue importance.
5.Admittedly in this case, suicide committed inside the house of the
respondents and it is for the respondents to give explanation. In this case,
both the school going children of the deceased not enquired which is again a
flaw. He further submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider that the
deceased's father and brother travelled all the way from Rajasthan not once
but on several occasions complaining about improper investigation and
given details about the victim's sufferings at the hands of the respondents.
PW13/Postmortem Doctor in the report/Ex.P4 confirmed the injuries found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
on the face, chest and shoulders of the deceased. In this case, the
respondents not cross examined PW13 and elicited any answers for the
injuries found in the deceased. PW13 stated that the cause of death is most
probably due to asphyxia due to hanging and that would not straightaway
absolve the respondents. He would submit that the specific complaint of
PW1 and PW2 is that the deceased was beaten and murdered, thereafter
projected as suicide. The charges framed against the respondents is for
abetment for suicide, which took place inside the house, then it is for the
respondents to probabilize their defence by some cogent materials to show
they are not the reason for suicide. On the contrary, there are injuries on the
deceased but no explanation given which the Trial Court failed to consider.
The Trial Court gave undue importance, gone by the contradictions bewteen
PW1, PW2 and PW15. All other private witnesses not supported the case of
the prosecution. This finding by the Trial Court is perverse, against the
materials collected and attendant facts of the case. Hence, prayed for setting
aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
6.The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
appellants' contention and submitted that in this case the marriage between
the first respondent and the deceased held in the year 1995, after the
marriage both were living in Rajasthan for a period of three years and they
were blessed with two sons. Thereafter they came to Cuddalore and was
residing there. The first son was born in the year 2003 and the second son
was born in the year 2005 and they were living in a joint family in
Cuddalore. He would submit that till the death of his wife, neither the
father nor the brother of the deceased visited them in Cuddalore. It was his
wife who used to visit her parents in Rajasthan and she was also regularly
speaking to them over phone. All these years till the death of his wife there
was no complaint about the respondent ill-treating the deceased and illicit
relationship of the first respondent with his brother's wife, for the first time
during trial making contradictory statement which is admitted by
PW18/Investigating Officer. He would further submit that other than Hindi,
PW1 and PW2 did not know any other language, they were unable to
communicate with locals and the Police in Cuddalore and on their own
understanding making wild allegations. The Investigating Officer found the
allegations to be baseless coupled with the fact that Postmortem Doctor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
confirmed that the death was due to asphyxia by hanging. It is to be seen
that in this case the first respondent immediately rushed to the Police
Station and lodged the complaint informing the Police about his wife
hanging, his two children are still with the first respondent and he is only
taking care of them. Except for wild allegation by PW1 and PW2 there is
no other materials. Even the relatives/PW3, PW4, PW5, PW14 and PW15
not spoken anything against the respondents. The neighbours/PW6 and
PW7 are residing in the first floor of the same building and PW8 to PW11
are neighbours, but none of them stated anything about cruelty or assault by
the respondents. PW12 is the Village Assistant who depose about
preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch. PW13/Docotor
confirms that the cause of death of the deceased is suicide by hanging.
PW16 confirms that the first respondent lodged a complaint, PW17/Sub-
Inspector of Police conducted initial investigation and PW18 is the
Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed final report
in this case. He further submitted that during examination of the first
respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he submitted a written submission
stating about his wife suffering from chronic headache and stomach pain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
and she took medical treatment with Aravind Eye Hospital, Puducherry,
Dr.Renuka Devi Neurologist and Dr.Latha Ramalingam, General
Practitioner and visited them regularly and medical prescription produced.
The learned counsel further referring to Ex.C1 and Ex.D1 submitted that
with motive and vengeance petitions filed before the Trial Court as well as
this Court and all the Courts rejected the claim of PW1 and PW2 as not
sustainable. The Trial Court considering that it is not a case of murder and
it is a case of suicide by hanging and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are
with contradictions and exaggerations, further there is no materials to link
the respondents to the death of the deceased, had rightly acquitted the
respondents. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is
seen that in this case the first respondent and the deceased got married in the
year 1995, they were living happily initially in Rajasthan and thereafter,
shifted to Cuddalore. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons
and both of them studying in C.K.School, Cuddalore. It is admitted by PW1
and PW2 that they have not visited Cuddalore after Meera settled in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
Cuddalore from the year 2001 onwards. The deceased Meera used to visit
Rajasthan and stay with her parents and this has been a regular feature.
Even for her second son delivery, she went to Rajasthan and delivered her
second son. Till the death of Meera, there is no complaint of harassment,
beating and illicit relationship, only after the death of his daughter, PW1
and wild allegations made against the respondents as though first
respondent not happy when he was informed about the deceased undergone
Sterilization after her second delivery in the year 2005 and from then on,
started abusing and assaulting and the deceased regularly informing her
parents and brother over phone. In this case, no mobile phone seized and
Call Data Records collected. The further allegation is that the first
respondent having illicit relationship with the second respondent's wife is
without any materials. The close relatives and the neighbours not deposed
anything against the first respondent for ill-treating his wife for having any
illicit relationship with the second respondent's wife. Both children of first
respondent are grown up children but no enquiry conducted with them with
regard to the relationship between the deceased and the respondents. On the
other hand, it is seen that on 05.08.2011 at about 9.45 a.m., after sending his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
two children to the School the first respondent left to his shop and came
back for lunch, when he found his wife hanging in a nylon rope in the
bedroom. Immediately he rushed to the Police Station and lodged a
complaint to PW16/SSI, who received the complaint, registered FIR/Ex.P5
and thereafter, PW17/Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of
occurrence, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P1 and rough sketch/Ex.P6 in
the presence of PW12, inquest conducted in the presence of PW4 and
others. The postmortem was conducted by PW13/Doctor, who issued
Postmortem certificate/Ex.P4 and through PW13, viscera report and hyoid
bone report Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 marked. The body of the deceased flown to
Rajasthan and from there it was taken to the native of the first respondent.
The first respondent along with his son accompanied the body of the
deceased to Rajasthan and the family members of the deceased were
informed who also participated in the last rites of the deceased, later PW1
alleges that he saw some injuries and doubted the death of his daughter and
he was sure that his daughter was murdered. Hence, PW1 along with his
son PW2 came to Cuddalore along with PW15/relative, went to the
Thirupapuliyur Police Station, gave a statement, collected medical records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
from the Government Hospital, Cuddalore.
8.On 17.08.2011 PW1 and PW2 came to Cuddalore, met the Police
Officials and Doctor on 19.08.2011 and the Superintendent of Police and
Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.08.2011, lodged a complaint and
thereafter left to Rajasthan on 26.08.2011. Again on 17.11.2011, they filed
a direction petition seeking transfer of investigation in Crl.O.P.No.30074 of
2011 and the same was dismissed on 14.02.2012 finding that investigation
completed and charge sheet filed with a liberty to file appropriate petition
before the Sessions Court. Following the same, a petition under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation filed in Crl.M.P.No.192 of
2012 before the Sessions Court wherein what is deposed by PW1 and PW2
in the chief examination are found in the petition. The Trial Court
dismissed the same on 26.06.2012 and thereafter, revision petition filed
before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.967 of 2012 and the same was also
dismissed on 19.03.2013. The respondent filed a petition under Section 311
Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.584 of 2014 for examining additional evidence and
the same was rejected by the Trial Court on 18.12.2014, against which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.24439 of 2015 filed and this Court by order dated 01.10.2015
dismissed the same. Thus, it is seen that PW1 and PW2 had been
consistently making allegations against the respondents as though murder
committed but the medical evidence and other evidence are otherwise. It is
to be seen that both the sons of the first respondent and the deceased are
living with the first respondent and continuing their education. A perusal of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and medical prescription annexed
confirms that the deceased was under severe headache and stomach pain
and she had unbearable pain which might be a reason for her taking the
extreme step. These facts have been clearly analysed by the Trial Court by a
well reasoned judgment. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the judgment of the Trial Court.
9.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
14.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
To
1.The District Mahalir Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore District
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 07:14:55 pm )
