This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in
S.C.No.340 of 2016 dated 16.03.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai-600 003.
2.The appellants/accused in S.C.No.340 of 2016 convicted by the
Trial Court by judgment dated 16.03.2022 and sentenced them as follows:
•A2 and A3 to undergo three years simple imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
498A IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
3.The case of the prosecution is that the first appellant is the husband
of the deceased, the second and third appellant are the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased Selviyammal. The first appellant and the
deceased got married on 28.09.2012. During the marriage, customary
sridhana articles presented. The deceased Selviyammal was a Graduate and
the first appellant was in the photography business. It was a marriage of
choice. After the marriage, the deceased stayed with the appellants where
she was not treated properly, she was harassed, humiliated and further her
jewels were pledged. The first appellant was addicted to alcohol. Later, the
first appellant and the deceased were living separately. Thereafter, the
situation had not improved and the appellants demanded additional dowry,
humiliating the deceased and further demanded setting up a separate photo
studio for the first appellant. The defacto complainant/mother of the victim)
pledged her property and gave Rs.2 lakhs for setting up a Studio which the
first appellant could not successfully run, again fell in debt, addicted to
alcohol and the deceased was continuously abused and assaulted. Thereafter,
the defacto complainant/mother of the deceased took her daughter and her
son-in-law to her house and they were staying there. Again the first appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
not attended any work. The defacto complainant was working as a Cook, she
used to go for work by 7:00 a.m. and return back by 9:00 p.m. This is her
daily routine. Even prior to the day of the incident i.e., 03.05.2015 at night
hours, there was a fight between the deceased and the first appellant.
Thereafter, on the next day morning, the defacto complainant left for her job
and at about 8:00 a.m., when she called her daughter, she was not
responding, hence she came back home, found a crowd in front of her house.
She opened the door and found her daughter lying on the floor and the first
appellant was sitting in a corner of the room speaking over phone. When
enquired, he informed that she had fallen down and sustained injury and
thereafter, the defacto complainant took her daughter to Excellent Care
Super Speciality Hospital, Velachery but the first appellant/A1 was not
showing any response and stayed back. PW5/Doctor who examined the
deceased Selviyammal found that she was brought dead and recorded in
Ex.P10 that a clear ligature mark was seen on the neck. PW1 went to the
police station, lodged a complaint to PW6, who registered FIR/Ex.P11 and
finding that the death has taken place within 7½ years of marriage informed
PW8/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who received FIR and sent a
request to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) through Ex.P14 to conduct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
inquest. PW8 visited the Hospital, inspected the body and thereafter sent
the body to the mortuary of Government Hospital, Royapettah. Thereafter,
PW8 wisited the scene of occurrence, enquired the witnesses including the
defacto complainant, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P8 and rough
sketch/Ex.P15 in the presence of witnesses, collected the Dupatta found
inside the house of the deceased and the diary written by her. After
completion of inquest, received the report from the RDO confirming that the
cause of death is the habit and behaviour of the first appellant, addiction to
alcohol and subjecting the victim to cruelty P.W.8 continued with the
investigation and sent the seized materials to the Court, MO1/Dupatta,
Ex.P2/diary, Ex.P3/SSLC mark sheet of the deceased, Ex.P4/HSC mark
sheet of the deceased, Ex.P5/letter by the deceased to the CM and
Ex.P6/long size note book all collected, sent to Handwriting Expert. The
Doctor, who conducted the postmortem was examined and a postmortem
report collected, confirming death was due to asphyxia due to hanging.
Thereafter Section was altered to offence under Section 306 IPC. Since PW8
was transferred, the file was handed over to the succeeding Assistant
Commissioner of Police/P.W.10. In the meanwhile, PW9/Inspector of police
who was assisting the investigation on getting information about A1 in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
case, arrested him on 02.10.2015. On 07.05.2015, the defacto complainant
appeared before the Inspector and submitted the hand written notebook of
the deceased/Ex.P6. PW10 took up investigation, collected forensic report
along with the reasoning sheet confirming handwriting of the deceased,
death note and the appellants are the reason for taking the extreme step. On
conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, PW1 to PW10
examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 marked, MO1 and MO2 produced on the side of
the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no
documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the
appellants as stated above.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
marriage between the first appellant and the deceased took place on
28.09.2012 and it was a love marriage. After the marriage, the deceased and
A1 were living with A2 and A3 in Maduravoyal. It is projected as though
A1 addicted to alcohol, due to which he caused harassment and suffering to
the deceased. Even prior to the marriage, they knew each other for five
years, their habits and way of life, at that time, there was no complaint that
the first appellant/A1 alcoholic. The deceased was not willing to stay in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
joint family, hence she insisted for separate home, it was agreed and they
were staying separately. Later, the deceased insisted that the first appellant
wanted her daughter to stay with her, hence from Maduravoyal shifted to
Velachery. Since the deceased not conceived even after 2½ years of
marriage, she was in a depressive mood and for that reason, she committed
suicide but it is now projected against the first appellant. The admitted
position is that after the marriage for few months A1 and the deceased living
in a joint family with A2 and A3 and thereafter, they were living separately
for some time. Five months prior to the suicide, the deceased and A1 were
living with PW1.. In this case, admittedly the deceased committed suicide in
her parents' house. It is further projected that the first appellant was not
getting any job, lastly he joined a photo studio and 20 days prior to the
occurrence, he left the job claimed he will use his laptop and do some design
work on his own. The deceased was worried for the joblessness of the first
appellant used to pick up quarrel with her husband/A1. The Trial Court
convicted the appellants primarily on Ex.P2/suicide note, it is seen that the
deceased was pregnant for four months but the Postmortem Doctor in his
report/Ex.P12 not mentioned about presence of fetus. Then the question
arises as to when was this alleged suicide note written. In this case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
admittedly no Handwriting Expert examined but a report/Ex.P24 of
Dr.Sivapriya, Assistant Directorand Document Expert, Forensic Science
Department, Mylapore, Chennai and the reasoning sheet/Ex.P25 taken in
evidence. Further in this case Ex.P6/long size notebook is said to have been
produced by PW1 to PW9 months later on 10.10.2015 and the writings in
Ex.P6 taken as admitted writings and studied along with the writings found
in Ex.P2. Hence the report Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 becomes highly doubtful.
Further mere production of Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 would not be taken as
proved. In this case, the inquest report/Ex.P17 and enquiry report/Ex.P18 of
RDO marked through the Investigating Officer and the RDO not examined
as witness in this case. On the contrary, the Trial Court place heavy reliance
on the RDO report and the Handwriting Expert's report in convicting the
appellants. The reason given by the Trial Court that the the expert report can
be taken in evidence by invoking Section 293 Cr.P.C. is not proper for the
reason that when the alleged admitted writings of the deceased was produced
five months after the occurrence without any contemporary documents or
witnesses. In this case PW 1 is the mother of the deceased who gives an
exaggerated version with contradictions. In her complaint she states that the
ceiling of the house is low, her daughter a bold character person and she will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
not commit suicide and A1 murdered her daughter. Further the presence of
A1 in the scene of occurrence is also doubtful. PW1 states that the house
was locked from inside and A1 was sitting inside the house. But PW3 states
that she had come, knocked the door and saw A1 sitting inside the house and
the door was opened. PW2, a neighbour not supported the case of the
prosecution as to the previous day fight. PW4 is the witness for the
observation mahazar and for the seizure of material objects. MO2 is the
diary in which the suicide note/Ex.P2 found. PW5/Doctor confirms that
there was a ligature mark around the neck of the victim. PW7/Postmortem
Doctor confirms the death was due to hanging. PW6 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police who received the complaint and registered the FIR in this case. PW8
and PW10 are the Assistant Commissioners of Police who conducted
investigation in this case. PW9 states that PW1 appeared before him and
produced Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 on 07.05.2015 which are the admitted writings. In
such circumstances PW9/Inspector of Police states that on 10.10.2015 PW1
produced Ex.P6, a classmate notebook containing the writings of the
deceased. This has been recorded in Form 95/Ex.P22. Form 95/Ex.P16 and
Ex.P22 are not supported with any seizure mahazar. Hence the RDO report
and the Handwriting Expert report are not produced and proved in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
manner known to law, on the contrary the Trial Court relies these evidence
to come to conclusion, deceased left a dying declaration and convicted the
appellants. Hence prayed for acquittal.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case
PW1 is the mother of the deceased, who lodged a complaint to PW6, who
received the complaint and registered FIR/Ex.P11 in this case. The accused
hails from Maduravoyal and PW1 was residing in Velachery. Four to five
years prior to the occurrence, A1 was staying as a tenant in the house of
PW1, when the deceased and A1 developed love affair. Both their parents
conducted the marriage and after the marriage, the deceased was staying
with the appellants in Maduravoyal as a joint family. During the marriage,
40 sovereigns of gold jewels, a motorbike, cash and sridhana articles
presented. The first appellant was addicted to alcohol and was not attending
any work, he pledged all the jewels and spent money on drinking, which was
questioned by the deceased. The first appellant due to addiction to alcohol
could not continue the business and everything went in drain. Five months
prior to the occurrence, the first appellant and the deceased taken to
Velachery and they were staying with PW1, who was working as housemaid,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
she used to go for job at 7:00 a.m. and come back at 9:00 p.m. There was
constant quarrel between the deceased and her husband. Even on the
previous night i.e., on 03.05.2015 the first appellant and his deceased wife
both quarreled, had a fight. On 04.05.2015, PW1 went to work and when
she called her daughter, she had not responded. Hence, PW1 came back
home, found her daughter lying on the floor, the first appellant/A1 was
found sitting in a corner of the hall talking over phone, when enquired, A1
informed PW1 that deceased fainted and fell down. Thereafter, with the help
of neighbours PW1 took her daughter to the Hospital where PW5/Doctor
examined her and declared brought dead. The ligature mark found on the
deceased recorded in the Accident Register. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a
complaint to PW6, who registered FIR and found that the death was within
seven years of marriage, he placed the FIR to PW8, who took up
investigation, visited the Hospital, made arrangements for shifting the body
to Government Hospital, Royapettah. Thereafter, PW8 prepared observation
mahazar, rough sketch and seized MO1/Dupatta and suicide note diary,
thereafter sent a request to RDO to conduct inquest. The RDO conducted
inquest, gave a report/Ex.P18 that the death was not due to any dowry
demand but due to cruelty and harassment and suspicion found against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
first appellant, hence directed to continue the investigation. PW8 continued
the investigation and on his transfer, PW10 took up investigation collected
reports. Handwriting Expert report/Ex.P24, reasoning sheet/Ex.P25
confirming Ex.P2/suicide note was written by the deceased. PW9/Inspector
of Police on getting information arrested the accused and he collected a
notebook with the writings of the deceased from PW1. In this case, except
for PW2/neighbour, all other witnesses supported the case of the
prosecution. On the evidence and materials produced, primarily on the
suicide note and RDO report, the Trial Court convicted the appellants in this
case. The defence of the appellants is that the appellants belong to
scheduled caste community and the deceased belongs to Naicker a Most
Backward community and the deceased was not happy with the marriage
life, hence she was crumbling and finally committed suicide. This may not
be a proper explanation since prior to marriage, they had love affair for more
than four years and both knew their social and economic status, both
families agreed and marriage was performed. Had there been any objection
in the caste, the marriage would not have been performed. Considering all
these aspects, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants. Hence,
prayed for dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that the deceased and A1 had a love affair, accepted by both families
and their marriage was performed on 28.09.2012. After the marriage, A1 and
the deceased living along with A2 and A3 at Maduravoyal for some time.
During the marriage, customary sridhana articles, 40 sovereigns of jewels,
cash of Rs.40,000/-, motorbike and household articles presented. A1 was
not attending to any work, pledged all the jewels of the deceased and was
having his own way of life, regularly consuming alcohol which caused
disturbance in the matrimonial life and there was some dispute between
husband and wife. A2 and A3, parents of A1 not taken any corrective action
but supported A1. Further, they harassed, abused and subjected the deceased
to cruelty. A2 and A3 were not having good relationship with the deceased
and the deceased was regularly assaulted. PW1 took a house on lease, set up
an independent family for A1 and deceased. PW1 pledged her house, took
loan of Rs.2 lakhs and given to A1 to start a photo studio. But again A1 due
to addiction to alcohol unable to continue with the studio and the deceased
questioned A1. A1 and deceased came to PW1 house stating A2 and A3 not
willing to accept the deceased. There was a police complaint, in which A1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
A2 and A3 and the deceased along with her mother all summoned, it was
decided that the deceased and A1 would stay along with PW1 and they were
staying for almost five months. A1's search for job was not successful, lastly,
he got job in a photo studio and worked there but it did not last long. Twenty
days prior to the occurrence, he left the job and claimed that he would do
designing work using his laptop from home which further triggered the
difference between the deceased and A1. All through these days, A1 was
continuing with his alcoholic habit which further ruined the marriage life of
the deceased. On 03.05.2015, the deceased called her husband to take her to
temple which he refused, but A1 had gone out and came back late at night.
There was quarrel and fight. On the next day i.e. 04.05.2015, PW1 informed
her daughter and left for her job at 7.00 a.m. At about 9.00 a.m., when she
called her daughter there was no response. Immediately, she came back
home, found her daughter lying on the floor and A1 was sitting in the corner
of the room talking to someone showing no concern for the deceased. PW1
took the deceased with the help of others in an auto to Excellent Care Super
Speciality Hospital, Velachery where the Doctor examined her, pronounced
brought dead and in Ex.P10, noted a ligature mark in the neck. PW1 lodged
a complaint to PW6, who registered FIR. PW8/Investigating Officer written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
to RDO for conducting inquest, thereafter PW8 visited the Hospital, made
arrangements for the body to be shifted to Government Hospital,
Royapettah. PW8 visited the scene of occurrence, collected Dupatta/MO1
and Diary/MO2 in which suicide note/Ex.P2 is written. In the presence of
PW4, MO1 and MO2 seized through Ex.P9. From Ex.P8/observation
mahazar, it is seen that the ceiling is 9 feet height sufficient for hanging.
The RDO conducted inquest, recorded the statement of the witness and
given his report, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. The report confirms doubt is caused
against A1 since he was in the habit of taking alcohol daily and there was
constant fight between A1 and the deceased and requested further probe.
Thereafter, PW8 continued with the investigation and on his transfer, he
handed over the investigation to PW10. On 07.05.2015 PW1 handed over
the marksheets/Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and a letter written by her, ExP5, the same
received and recorded in Form 95/Ex.P22. Thereafter, PW1 appeared before
PW9 on 10.10.2015 and handed over a classmate notebook of the deceased.
Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 forwarded to the Handwriting Expert through Ex.P23. On
27.10.2015, the Handwriting Expert received and gave a report, Ex.P24. On
conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
7.From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is seen that marriage between
the deceased and the first appellant held on 28.09.2012, customary sridhana
articles, jewels and cash presented. The marriage was a love-cum-arranged
marriage. The deceased and the first appellant were staying as a joint family
along with A2 and A3. PW4/neighbour confirms the seizure of a dupatta and
suicide note on 04.05.2015. Ex.P8 is the observation mahazar and Ex.P9 is
the seizure mahazar, both confirm the seizure of MO1 and MO2 from the
scene of the occurrence on the same day of occurrence. PW5 confirms the
issuance of Ex.P5, from which it is seen that the deceased was immediately
rushed to the Excellent Care Super Speciality Hospital, Velachery on
04.05.2015 at about 9:20 a.m. by PW1/mother of the deceased. The ligature
mark seen on the neck of the deceased is recorded. Thereafter, PW1 lodged
the complaint/Ex.P1 on the same day to PW6 at about 12 noon and
FIR/Ex.P11 registered. The postmortem report, Ex.P12 confirms deceased
appeared to have died of asphyxia due to hanging, hence there is no dispute
with regard to the cause of death, whether it is self or abetted by first
appellant is the question to be decided. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear
that the matrimonial life of the deceased was not happy as she expected. She
was under severe trauma for the past 1½ years when she stayed along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
A2 and A3 as a joint family and when the deceased and the first appellant
stayed alone as an independent family and when the deceased and A1 stayed
along with the defacto complainant/PW1. A1 was addicted to alcohol not
concentrating on his career, not taking care of his wife, showered any love
and affection, care or concern for the deceased, who is a Graduate, came up
hard way in her life, nursed by a single parent mother dreaming big in life,
fond of happiness in the marriage life. Despite the caste barriers, she
married A1, but her entire dream got shattered, since A1 was only focused in
drinking alcohol, having his own way of life, all jewels lost and was without
job. PW1 pledged her house and gave Rs.2 lakhs for starting a studio, which
was not lasted. During her stay with A2 and A3 as joint family, the deceased
was assaulted both verbally and physically at the hands of A2 and A3.
Earlier, a police complaint lodged and thereafter only deceased and A1
started living in Velachery along with PW1/mother of the deceased. Twenty
days prior to the incident, A1 lost the job and again started drinking, which
was questioned by the deceased. On 03.05.2015 at night hours, there was a
fight between A1 and the deceased. On 04.05.2015 as usual PW1 went to
work and found her daughter committing suicide. Earlier PW1's daughter
narrated her sufferings and pain written a suicide note/Ex.P2 which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
seized on the same day of the occurrence and admitted writings/Ex.P6 all
seized in a cover of mahazar, from the scene of occurrence. The suicide note
narrates the sufferings and pain of the deceased and for that reason, she was
pushed abetted to take such an extreme step of ending her life. The Trial
Court relied upon Ex.P2 and convicted the appellants. The authenticity of
Ex.P2 studied along with Ex.P6 and the reasoning sheet/Ex.P25 and the
report/ Ex.P24 of the Handwriting Expert confirms the same. The Trial
Court in its judgment at paragraph No.25 gave reason for accepting the
suicide note/Ex. P2. The RDO conducted inquest and given his
report/Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. The report indicts first appellant and gave a
finding for further investigation. PW8 and PW10, the Investigating Officers
conducted investigation in this case and collected evidence, all confirming
the first appellant abetted the suicide of his wife, A2 and A3 subjected the
deceased to cruelty. Ex.P2 is proved, well corroborated with other evidence,
hence this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial
Court. The conviction by the Trial Court is confirmed. However, this Court
is inclined to modify the sentence imposed against the appellants.
8.Accordingly, the judgment in S.C.No.340 of 2016 dated 16.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam,
Chennai-600 003 is modified and the sentence imposed against the first
appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC is modified from ten years
to five years and the sentence imposed against A2 and A3 for the offence
under Section 498A IPC is modified from three years to six months. As far
as the conviction and sentence of three years for the offence under Section
498A IPC against A1 is confirmed. The sentences to run concurrently.
9.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.
07.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Guindy Range, J3 Guindy Police Station,
Chennai – 600 032.
2.The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Allikulam, Chennai-600 003.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
07.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:53 pm )
