Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2015 · Madras High Court · 2025

Crl.A. No.470 of 2015agreed 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. 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 20152.3.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 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015received 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 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015witnesses 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. 2.5As 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. 2.6On 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 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015successor 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 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015denied 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 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015learned 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 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015of 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;jp rhzpg;gt[lu; Foj;j jfty; bjupe;J g";rhaj;jhu; kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;wnghJ kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;j mtuJ fztuplk; tprhupj;jnghJ gpukrf;jpf;F K:r;Rj;jpzuy; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. mjw;fhd rpfpr;ir mspj;J te;jjhft[k;. rk;gtk; ele;j md;W K:r;Rj;jpzwy; fhuzkhf rhzpg;gt[lu; Foj;J fhuzkhf ,we;Jtpl;ljhft[k; bjuptpj;jjhf Twpdhu;fs;/ mjd; fhuzkhf gpukrf;jp ,wg;ghdJ Vw;gl;oUf;fyhk; vd;W bjuptpj;jdu;/ nkYk; mtuJ ,wg;ghdJ vd;d fhuzj;jpw;fhf 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; tPl;lhupd; 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 rhzpg;gt[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; tPl;lhupd; Jd;g[wj;jy; fhuzkhf Vw;gl;ljpy;iy 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 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015Mahila 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 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015justice. 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 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015he 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.13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015(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 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015to 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 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015Appellants 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 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015Prosecutor 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 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015harassment 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 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015is 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 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015marriage 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 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015to 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 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015woman, 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.22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 201519. 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 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015husband 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 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015sister 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.25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015The Respondent Police is directed to secure the Accused and produce him before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District.02.06.2025dhIndex: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-speaking Order26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015To1.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.27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.470 of 2015SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, Jdh Judgment inCrl.Appeal No.470 of 201502.06.202528/28