Srinivasan v. State rep by Inspector of Police, Kamapai Nallur Police Station, Dharmapuri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 30.03.2012CoramTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.R.C.No.600 of 2009Srinivasan.. Petitioner Vs.1.State rep by Inspector of Police, Kamapai Nallur Police Station, Dharmapuri. (Cr.No.272 of 2003).2.Mohan3.V.Senthil kumar4.Jothi.. RespondentsPrayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 ofCr.P.C., against the judgment dated 09.06.2008 made in S.C.No.78 of2004 on the file of Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court,Dharmapuri and pray that this Court may be pleased to set-aside theorder of acquittal and convict the accused as charged.For Petitioner : Mr.K.GandhikumarFor Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz (for R1) Government Advocate(Crl.Side) Mr.C.H.Pandian (for R2 to R4)ORDERThe revision petitioner / De-facto complainant / PW1 haspreferred the present revision against the judgment dated 09.06.2008made in S.C.No.78 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions cum FastTrack Court, Dharmapuri and prays that this Court may be pleased toset-aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused as charged.2.The short facts of the case are as follows:-On 12.12.1999, the deceased Sujatha and the 1st accused namelyMohan had married one another at Tiruttani Temple as per HinduCustoms and Rites. Immediately after the marriage, both started to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lead their married life at Thangavel Nagar, Kambainallur. On08.05.2002, the accused 1 to 3 had tortured the deceased to bringdowry of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the deceased had committedsuicide. Therefore, the prosecution / Inspector of Police,Kambainallur Police Station had registered a criminal case in CrimeNo.272 of 2003, for the alleged offences under Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act and Section 304(b) of I.P.C., against the accused 1to 3. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed againstthe accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Harur. The learnedMagistrate had referred the case to the Principal Sessions Judge,Krishnagiri, who in turn assigned the case to the Additional SessionsJudge and Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, who took the case on file asS.C.No.78 of 2004 and tried the same.3.On the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were listed and15 documents were marked. Besides this, 8 material objects wereproduced. On the side of the defence / accused, one witness wasexamined as RW1 and 2 documents were marked. The copy of the chargesheet were furnished on the accused and they were enquired abouttheir guilt. The accused had pleaded not guilty. Hence, the casehad been tried.4.PW1, the father of the deceased had adduced evidence that hisdaughter Sujatha was a Graduate in B.Sc. Computer Science and thatshe had married the 1st accused on 12.12.1999 at Tiruttani Temple, asper Hindu Customs and Rites. The 2nd and 3rd accused are the brotherand mother of the 1st accused. He deposed that he had given Seethanavaluables amounting to an extent of 50 Sovereigns of Gold jewels tohis daughter and also given one Yamaha motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- incash to the 1st accused. The 1st accused is also a Graduate in B.Sc.(Agri) and he is unemployed. He deposed that the 1st accusedfrequently picked quarrels with the deceased and asked her to getmoney for him. He had also given sums of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/- andRs.500/- on various occasions to the deceased. On 08.05.2002, allthe accused tortured his daughter demanding her to bring a sum ofRs.50,000/- to start a provision store. The deceased had come to himand informed him about this incident. He had also agreed to pay thesaid amount after some time as it was the month of Chithirai.Thereafter, on 10.05.2002, the deceased had phoned him and told himthat the accused wanted the money immediately. He had also repliedthat he would arrange to pay the money within 5 days. On 12.05.2002,at about 3.00 p.m., he had received a phone call from KambainallurPachiappa Chettiar that his daughter had committed suicide byhanging. Immediately, he had rushed to the occurrence place alongwith his relations and noticed his deceased daughter lying in aninclined position on the sofa in the accused's house. The fingers ofthe deceased had turned blue in colour and belt marks were visible onher neck. PW1 had enquired with the father of the 1st accused and hereplied that there was a quarrel between the 1st accused and thedeceased. He further deposed that the father of the 1st accused toldhim that he had informed the deceased before her death that she need https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not demand any money from her father and that he had given a sum ofRs.1,000/- to the 1st accused.5.PW10, Doctor, who was attached to the Government Hospital,Harur adduced evidence that he had sent a request letter to theRevenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri. PW10 adduced evidence thathe had conducted postmortem and submitted the report on 13.05.2002,stating that the mouth of the deceased was open and that there werebite marks near her teeth and blood was coming out of her nose alongwit froth. PW10 further stated that there was a mark of a ropeextending to a length of 18.2 cms on her front neck. PW14, oneArumugam had adduced evidence that after investigation he hadobserved that the accused had tortured the deceased for dowry and thesame was noticed by the neighbours. He further deposed that on thedate of occurrence, the deceased had gone inside the house and lockedherself in and committed suicide and at that point of time, the 1staccused had come to the occurrence place, after having a bath, inorder to change his dress and noticed that the door was locked frominside. Hence, the 1st accused had opened the window and noticed thedeceased hanging. Immediately, the door was forced open, afterremoving screws and the deceased was brought down and laid out on thesofa.6.Other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. Afterrecording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentaryevidence namely settlement deed and compromise deed produced bydefence witness RW1 i.e. the father of the 1st accused, it is seenthat PW1 had settled the property on the 1st accused and his wife(deceased).7.On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinisingthe documentary evidence and material objects, the trial Courtacquitted the accused since the prosecution case had not been provedbeyond doubt. Further, the trial Court had observed from thecitations cited by the defence side in case reported in 2008 (1) TMLR44 (MADRAS) wherein the operative portion is as follows:-"... Both witnesses have not been very specific in theirevidence regarding the date of demand of additional dowry byaccused from the deceased. No neighbours examined to showthat the deceased was subject to cruelty immediately prior tothe occurrence-prosecution failed to prove that immediatelyprior to occurrence, the victim was subjected to dowryharassment and cruelty"...8.The trial Court further observed that there is no iota ofevidence to show that the accused had tortured the deceased anddemanded dowry. Hence, all the accused were acquitted under Section304(b) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrievedby the said acquittal order, the defacto complainant has filed theabove revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The highly competent counsel Mr.K.Gandhi kumar has raised thegrounds in the above revision stating that the PW1 and PW2 hadclearly deposed before the Court about the demand of dowry by theaccused. Further, the 1st accused was unemployed and he hadfrequently demanded money from the deceased, as well as his father.This fact was clearly deposed by PW1 and PW2. PW14, R.D.O., who isan independent witness had also deposed that the accused had demandeddowry and that they had tortured the deceased frequently. PW14, theR.D.O. had conducted enquiry and submitted a report that the accusedpersons had demanded dowry. The report of the R.D.O. has been markedas Ex.P12. The trial Court had not considered the evidence of PW1,PW2 and PW14, whose evidences were of crucial importance, PW6 to PW9were also independent witnesses and they had also submitted that thedeceased had committed suicide due to harassment of the accused.10.The highly competent counsel Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz for theState submits that the 1st accused had frequently picked quarrel withthe deceased and demanded dowry from her father. PW1 had also paidsum of rupees amounting to Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- onvarious occasions. Further, PW1 had settled his property to and infavour of the 1st accused and the deceased. This settlement deed hadbeen executed due to dowry demand of the accused. Further, the 1staccused was a graduate and he was unemployed and hence he and hisbrother and mother had jointly demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to starta provision store. Therefore, the deceased was constrained to meether father i.e. PW1 and tell the dowry demand made by the accused.PW1 had also agreed to pay the said amount within a specified time.Even before completion of the stipulated time, the accused hadtortured the accused in order to get the said amount at once. Hence,the deceased was forced to commit suicide at the matrimonial home.The R.D.O. had conducted enquiry and submitted the report whichclearly reveals that the deceased had committed suicide due toharassment caused to her by demand of dowry. Further, the dowrydeath had happened within a period of three years from the date ofmarriage.11.The highly competent counsel Mr.C.H.Pandian, appearing forthe accused submits that the PW1 i.e. father of the deceased hadadmitted that he had executed the settlement deed in favour of the1st accused and his daughter of his own accord, without any demand orcompulsion made on the side of the accused. Further, after themarriage, there was no issue. Hence, the deceased had becomefrustrated. All the prosecution witnesses, except PW1 and PW2 andPW14 have become hostile and had contradicted their earlierstatements, which were given before the investigation officer. Assuch, the prosecution case had lost its strength. The prosecutioncase reveals that the deceased had committed suicide inside the houseafter locking herself inside. As such, there is no eyewitness toprove that the accused had tortured the deceased and demanded dowry.Further, there is no previous record or evidence to prove that all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the accused had harassed the deceased and demanded dowry from her.12.In the light of assessment of the facts and circumstances ofthe case in an integral manner and after perusing the revisiongrounds raised by the learned counsel Mr.K.Gandhikumar and on hearingthe arguments of the learned counsel Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, GovernmentAdvocate for the State and the learned counsel Mr.C.H.Pandian for theaccused and on perusing the trial Court judgment, this Court does notfind any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for acquitting theaccused. This Court is of the further view that most of theprosecution witnesses have become hostile and as such the prosecutioncase has lost its strength and it has not been proved beyond doubt.Even though the death of the deceased was unnatural, the cause of thedeath had not been determined with clarity. Hence, this Courtconfirms the trial Court order.13.In the result, the above revision is dismissed.Consequently, the judgment passed in S.C.No.78 of 2004, on the fileof Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, dated09.06.2008 is confirmed. Accordingly ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarvsTo1.The Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court,Dharmapuri.2.-do- Thro The Prl.Sessions Judge,Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras4.The Inspector of Police, Kamapai Nallur Police Station, Dharmapuri.Crl.R.C.No.600 of 2009mg(co)pmk.12.6.2014