Veerasamy v. Inspector of Police, Gomangalam Police Station, Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAHCRIMINAL APPEAL No.598 of 20091. Veerasamy2. Karuppusamy3. Nagavalli @ Vallianayagam ..Appellants/ Accused Nos.1,2, and 3Vs.Inspector of Police,Gomangalam Police Station,Coimbatore.Cr.No.30/2007 ..Respondent/ ComplainantThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.Cagainst the judgment and the order of conviction of the learnedSessions Judge of Mahila Court at Coimbatore made in S.C.No.181 of2007 dated 21.8.2009For Appellant : Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran for Mr.V.PurushothamanFor Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu MeeranAdditional Public ProsecutorJ U D G M E N T(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Challenge is made to the judgment of the Court of Sessions,(Mahila Court), Coimbatore made in S.C.No.181/2007 whereby theappellants, three in number, stood charged, tried and found guiltyunder section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and awarded two years rigorousimprisonment, three years rigorous imprisonment, 10 years rigorousimprisonment and life imprisonment each respectively along withfine and default sentences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appealcan be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the parents of the deceased. They hadfour daughters. Out of whom, the third daughter Baby was given inmarriage with the first accused/ first appellant on 1.12.2006.After marriage, the first accused along with his wife startedliving jointly with A2 and A3, parents of A1. When they were livingtogether, there was demand of 10 sovereign of gold jewels, cash andhouse hold articles. At the time of marriage, 5 sovereign goldjewels and house hold articles were given to the accused.Regarding the remainder, they demanded often and harassed thevictim. Under such circumstances, she left the matrimonial home andwas living with her parents. On 12.3.2007, A1 to A3 along withtheir relatives went to the house of P.W.1 and tendered apology forthe acts done in the past and took her to their house on theassurance that they would give her peaceful life. Believing theirwords, P.W.1 sent his daughter/deceased along with them. (b) On 16.3.2007, since the deceased Baby could not bear thecruelty exhorted on her, she committed suicide. The matter wasinformed to P.W.1 at about 4.30 p.m. by his son-in-law/A1.Immediately, P.Ws. 1 and 6 went to Udumalpet Government Hospitaland found the dead body of their daughter in the mortuary. Theysuspected her death.(c) P.W.1 went to the respondent Police Station and gave acomplaint, Ex.P1 to P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police Coimbatore whowas on duty at that time. On the strength of Ex.P1, complaint acase came to be registered in Crime No.30 of 2007 under sections498-A, 306 of IPC and Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The express F.I.R.,Ex.P19 was sent to Court.(d) Since the death has taken place within a short span oftime from the date of marriage of the first accused and thedeceased, there arose a necessity to refer the matter to the Sub-Collector, Pollachi. Accordingly, on receipt of the copy of theF.I.R., P.W.5 Sub-Collector, Pollachi recorded the statement ofthe witnesses. He conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P.15. He also preparedthe Inquiry report Ex.P.17.(e) P.W.12, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of thatplace, took up investigation. He went to the spot made aninspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.20 and drewa rough sketch Ex.P22. He also recovered M.O.1 rope from the placeof occurrence. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to postmortem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (f) On the requisition made by the Investigating Officer,P.W.3, doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceasedand issued the post mortem certificate, Ex.P.2 wherein he hasopinion that the deceased Baby would appear to have died ofasphyxia due to hanging.(g) On 20.3.2007, the investigating officer arrested the firstaccused. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. The secondand third accused were also arrested and they were sent forjudicial remand. The material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence and from the dead body of the deceased were sent foranalysis and the chemical reports, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, were receivedand placed before the Court. On completion of the investigation,the investigating officer filed a final report. (h) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessarycharges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelledagainst the accused, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses andrelied on 22 exhibits and 1 material object. On completion of theevidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the prosecution witnesses and they deniedthem as false. No defence witness was examined. One Court witnessviz., C.W.1 was examined. On hearing the arguments advanced oneither side, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution hasproved the case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgmentof conviction and sentence as referred to above. Hence, this appealat the instance of the appellants.3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, thelearned counsel for the appellants would submit, in the instantcase, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any one of theingredients necessary for the offence under sections 306 or 304-Bor 498-A of I.P.C. or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and has found theappellants guilty of the charges. Insofar as the dowry demand isconcerned, it is true that number of witnesses were examined but atthe earliest, the Sub-Collector P.W.5 has recorded the statement ofthe witnesses. P.W.6 who mother of the victim was also examined andshe has categorically stated before P.W.5 that there was no demandof dowry, either for jewels or for anything else. Even thoughnumber of witnesses have spoken about dowry demand, once themother has given evidence to that effect, the other evidence arerules out regarding the possibility of dowry demand. The evidenceof P.W. 6 in that regard was also supported by other circumstances.4. The learned counsel would further submit that in theinstant case, the medical opinion canvassed and placed before theCourt has proved the fact that it was commission of suicide. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution came forward with a story that she committed suicidedue to demand of dowry. Believing the prosecution story, the trialCourt has found the appellants guilty of the offence under sections304B, 306 and 498A IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct. In the instant case, there are evidence to prove that thedeceased Baby committed suicide due to her mental illness. EvenP.W.2, doctor who has been examined on the side of the prosecutionhas categorically stated that just 10 days prior to the occurrence,Baby was brought to his clinic and when he examined her, he foundher mentally ill. She did not answer to any of his questions.5. Added further learned counsel, the Sub-Collector has alsorecorded the statement to the effect that due to mental illness shewas taken for medical treatment and it was also spoken to by thewitnesses. At the earliest, when the accused was examined by P.W.5,Sub collector, the accused has categorically stated that after themarriage she did not speak to anybody properly and she was keepingcalm due to mental illness. Therefore, he took her to the medicalperson and gave treatment. Even then, she did not recover from thesaid illness. Added further learned counsel, in the instant case,the Court has examined the neighbour, C.W.1 in that regard who hascategorically stated to the effect that she had mental depressionand due to mental illness, she did not talk with others. All wouldclearly indicate the fact that though the prosecution was able toprove tha the deceased Baby has committed suicide, that was due tomental depression and ill health, for which, the accused/appellantsare not liable or answerable, but the trial Court has taken anerroneous view. The prosecution has not proved the case in anymanner known to law. Hence, the appellants are entitled foracquittal.6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.7. It is not in controversy that one Baby D/o P.W.1 and P.W.6was actually found dead and the specific case of the prosecutionwas she died due to hanging. P.W.2 the doctor who conducted postmortem has been examined and he has given evidence before the Courtand also through the contents of the post mortem certificate thatthe deceased would appear to have died out to asphyxia due tohanging. The prosecution was successful enough to ensure that shecommitted suicide by hanging. The trial Court has rightly recordedthe same. There is no impediment felt by this Court in recorded so.8. In the instant case, the appellants were found guilty underSection 306, 498A and 304B IPC and under section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act by the trial Court and was awarded punishments asreferred to above. The specific case of the prosecution before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial court was that the deceased has committed suicide because ofthe cruel treatment meted out on her by the appellants who demanded10 sovereign of gold jewels and other articles. Since theoccurrence has taken place, within a short time from the date ofmarriage between the first accused and the deceased, the copy ofthe F.I.R. was served upon the Sub-Collector of Pollachi. P.W.5,Sub-Collector, has examined the witnesses and recorded thestatements. The earliest statement given by P.W.6, mother of thedeceased which was marked as Ex.P5 would clearly indicate that evenprior to the occurrence, there was no complaint by the victimregarding the dowry demand from any one of the appellants. Thoughthe prosecution examined the father and sister of the deceased fordowry demand, the Court is not satisfied with their evidence sincethe competent person to speak about the fact and the best piece ofevidence was that of the mother of the deceased who was examined asP.W.6. The statement given by P.W.6 was that there was no dowrydemand or any demand for jewels. Hence, without any hesitation, itcould be accepted and acted upon. From the evidence available andon considering the above circumstances, the Court is afraid tosustain the conviction passed by the trial Court. 9. In the instant case, even as per the statement recorded bythe Sub-Collector and also by P.W.2, doctor the deceased Baby wastaken to the doctor, P.W.2 just 10 days prior to the occurrence.She was found mentally depressed and did not answer to any one ofthe doctor's question. Then, the doctor had advised the accused totake her to a psychiatrist. The Court has also examined oneneighbour of the deceased, C.W.1. He has categorically stated thathe knew the deceased and the accused family very well; that fromthe time of marriage, they were living together; that the deceasedwas found mentally depressed; that she used to go out of the houseoften due to mental illness and her husband/accused would go insearch of her and bring her home. All the above circumstances wouldindicate that due to mental depressing and mental illness, thedeceased has committed suicide and the appellants cannot be calledupon to answer how she has committed suicide. Therefore, the causefor committing suicide need not be search for from any othersources. The stand taken by the prosecution before the trial Courtthat the deceased committed suicide due to cruel treatment metedout on her and due to abetment of the accused/appellants, werenot proved by proper evidence. Under such circumstances, the Courtis of the opinion that it would be unsafe to record the findingthat the appellants are responsible for the death of the deceased.The prosecution has miserable failed to prove the case beyondreasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court has got tobe made undone by upsetting the same and the appellants areentitled for acquittal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment ofconviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by thelearned Sessions Judge of Mahila Court at Coimbatore made inS.C.No.181 of 2007 is set aside and they are acquitted of thecharges levelled against them. The appellants/A1 to A3 aredirected to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are requiredin connection with any other case. Fine amount if any executed bythe appellants is ordered to be refunded to them. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.vsiTo1. The Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Coimbatore.2. do thro the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore3. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet4. do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore5. The SuperintendentCentral Prison, Coimbatore6. The District CollectorCoimbatore7. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Madras-48. The Inspector of Police, Gomangalam Police Station, Coimbatore.9. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.1 cc to M/s. V. Purushothaman, SR. 69072CRL. APPEAL No.598 of 2009KSK (CO)kk 30/12