Rangasamy Gounder v. 1.The State of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.04.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRL.R.C.NO.2067 OF 2002Rangasamy Gounder.. Petitioner-vs-1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the Inspector of Police, Cheyur Police Station Avinasi Taluk Coimbatore District2. Shanmugam .. Respondents/Complainant & accused This Revision is filed against the Judgment of the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge( Fast Track Court No.5) Tirupurin S.C.No.229 of 2001 dated 30.7.2002.For petitioner : M/s.M.Sathyanarayanan,N.S.SivakumarFor respondents : Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian Addl. Public Prosecutor-R1 Mr.K.Goviganesan-R2ORDERThis revision has been preferred by the complainant (P.W.2), thefather of the deceased against the Judgment in S.C.No.229 of 2001 onthe file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge(FastTrack Court,No.5), Tirupur dated 30.7.2002. The case has been chargedagainst a single accused who is none other than the husband of thedeceased Mohanarani, the youngest daughter of the complainant/P.W.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2)The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:The marriage between the deceased and the accused took place on15.9.1996. The accused had often raised loan by pawning the jewels ofhis wife Mohanarani and has also demanded more dowry from the parentsof the deceased Mohanarani which had driven her to take an extremestep of committing suicide on 18.8.1998 at about 6.00p.m., in herhouse. Hence the accused has been charged under Section 304 (B) and498 A IPC. 3) The case was taken on file by the trial Court and onappearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 Cr.P.Cwere furnished to the accused and when charges were framed underSection 304 (B) and 498 A IPC and questioned the accused pleaded notguilty. 4) On the side of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined. ExsP1 to P7 were exhibited. No material objects were marked.5) P.W.1 is the private doctor who had seen the unfortunate girlMohanarani brought to the hospital by her husband/accused herein on15.8.1998 at about 8.00p.m alleging that she had consumed poison . Onexamination, he (P.W.1)found that the girl had already died and P.W.1had advised the accused to take her to the Government Hospital.5a) P.W.2 is the father of the deceased,who would depose that thedeceased Mohanarani is his youngest daughter and the marriage betweenthe accused and Mohanarani took place on 15.9.1996 at a temple. At thetime of marriage, he had presented 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments andalso Susuki Motor cycle and that after the marriage, in order todischarge the hand loan borrowed by the accused, he used to pawn hiswife's ornaments and also used to demand more money from him(P.W.2) tomeet the agricultural expenses. P.W.2 would state that his daughterused to complain that the accused found fault with her since she isincapable of bearing a child and that he came to know on theoccurrence date that his daughter Mohanarani had committed suicide byconsuming poison and that he along with his other daughters, sons andother relatives went to the Government Hospital and saw the corpse ofhis daughter where he informed that the corpse was brought by thehusband of Mohanarani/accused and left at the hospital and afterwards,he never turned to the hospital. Ex P1 is the complaint preferred byhim(P.W.2).5b) P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. She has also corroborated theevidence of P.W.2 to the effect that very often the accused used topawn the jewels of her daughter to raise loans. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5c) P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased Mohanarani. P.W.4'sevidence is also in the line of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 to theeffect that after the marriage the accused used to pawn the jewels ofthe deceased to raise loan and she came to know about this through herdeceased sister.5d) P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. He would depose thatthe accused had pledged the jewels of the deceased in a bank andraised loan.5e) P.W.11 is the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of AvinashiSub Division. According to him, P.W2 came to the police Station on19.8.1998 and preferred Ex P1 complaint and on the basis of the saidcomplaint, he had registered a case under Crime No.258/1998 underSection 174 Cr.P.C. After registering the case, he took upinvestigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and had drawnEx P6 rough sketch .5f)P.W.9 is the Head Constable , who had registered the case onthe basis of Ex P1 complaint preferred by P.W.2 . Ex P4 is the firstinformation report.5g) P.W.12 is the successor of P.W.11. On the basis of the inquestreport of the Sub Collector,Tirupur P.W.11 had altered the Sectionsof law to 498A and 306 IPC.5h) P.W.6 is the Postmortem constable, who had taken the corpse ofMohanarani from the hospital at Avinashi to the Government Hospital atTirupur. After the post mortem, he had handed over the clothes takenfrom the corpse to the Inspector of Police.5i)P.W.7 would admit that Ex P2 observation Mahazar contains hissignature . Apart from this, he has not supported the case of theprosecution. Hence he was treated as a hostile witness.5j) P.W.8 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem on thecorpse. Ex P3 is the post mortem report. The doctor has opined thatdue to consumption of pesticides, the deceased would have died 16 to18 hours prior to the post mortem.5k)P.W.10 is the Revenue Divisional Officer who had conductedinquest on 19.8.1998 at about 10.00a .m., at the mortuary of theGovernment Hospital, Tirupur. Ex P5 is the inquest report. In Ex P5,P.W.10 has stated that Mohanarani had died due to the consumption ofpoison. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5l) P.W.13 had continued his investigation and examined the doctoras well as the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the dyingdeclaration and after completing the formalities, P.W.13 had filed thechargesheet against the accused on 31.3.1999 under Section 498A and304 (B) IPC.6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, theaccused would totally deny his complicity with the crime.He hadexamined three witnesses on his side. Exs B1 to B3 were marked.7. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, thelearned Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion that the guilt againstthe accused under Sections 498A and 304(b) has not been proved beyondany reasonable doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt tothe accused, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused ofall the charges. Against the findings of the learned Sessions Judge,P.W.2 the father of the deceased Mohanarani had preferred thisrevision.8. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether thefindings of the learned trial Judge is manifest of error of law orprocedure or perverse in nature to warrant any interference from thisCourt.9. Heard Mr.N.S.Sivakumar,learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the State-R1 and Mr.K.Goviganesan, learnedcounsel appearing for R2 and considered their rival submissions.10.The Point:ExP1 the complaint is bereft of any allegation of dowry harassmentagainst the accused. On the basis of Ex P1 complaint a case underSection 174 Cr.P.C. alone was registered. Only in the evidence ofP.Ws 2 to 5, the father, mother, sister and brother of the deceasedrespectively would depose that the accused had pawn the jewels of thedeceased and raised loan . As rightly observed by the learnedSessions Judge, pawning the jewels of the wife and raising loan todischarge the subsisting debt is not an offence under any provisionsof law. Only in the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 5 would say that the accusedsubjected the deceased for cruelty but the above said witnesses havenot mentioned the exact date or time of the said alleged crueltymeeted at the hands of the accused by the deceased. No neighbourswere examined as the prosecution witnesses to prove that there werefrequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused in connectionwith the demand of dowry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitionerwould contend that the marriage itself was not consummated andputting the blame on the deceased, the accused used to torture her.If it is so, then the remedy open to the deceased is to file apetition before the family Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty.12. Yet another flaw noted in the case of the prosecution is thereport of the Revenue Divisional Officer(P.W.10) who had conductedthe inquest. The Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted inquest on19.9.1998 at about 10.00 a.m Ex P5 is his report. While deposingbefore the trial Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer hascategorically stated that he has examined the father of the deceased,the brother and sisters of the deceased and also the accused and themother of the deceased and recorded their statements. But in thecross examination to our dismay,he would admit that the date of thestatement of the above witnesses was on 20.8.1998 and not 19.8.1998.So it is clear from the evidence of P.W.10, itself that the statementswere not recorded by him (P.W.10) on the date and time of inquestconducted by him ie., on 19.8.1998 at 10.00 a.m., So we cannot givemuch importance to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer underEx P5 .13. It is pertinent to note from the evidence of P.W.1, thedoctor that the accused himself had brought the deceased Mohanaraniafter the occurrence at 8.00p.m., on 15.8.1998 . If the deceased wouldhave consumed poison at the instigation of the accused, then thenatural conduct of the accused would be to run away from the place ofoccurrence and not to take the victim to the hospital. After knowingthat his wife is already dead from P.W.1, the doctor, the accusedagain took the body to the Government Hospital at Tirupur on theadvise of P.W.1. In this regard, there is absolutely no satisfactoryevidence let in by the prosecution to show that who brought the corpseof Mohanarani from the private hospital to the Government Hospital.14. P.W.6 the police constable says that he came to the privatehospital and brought the corpse of Mohanarani to the GovernmentHospital. But P.W.1 the doctor of the private nursing Home had notmentioned in his evidence that he only intimated the police about thecorpse brought by the accused. P.W.1 would say that he advised theaccused to remove the body to the Government Hospital. But the accusedwho has examined himself as D.W.1 would depose that he brought hiswife Mohanarani to the Private Hospital and after knowing that she isalready dead had informed his uncle and also asked his brother in lawto go to Seyur Police Station to prefer a complaint and thereafteronly the police came there and he had narrated the incident which wasreduced to writing by the police. But the statement of the accusedhas not seen the light of the day in this case. It is pertinent tonote that P.W.2, the father of the deceased Mohanarani in the crossexamination had admitted that he got back the jewels as well as theSusuki Motor cycle which were presented to the accused at the time of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ marriage. Further there is absolutely no evidence to show that theaccused used to pawn the jewels of the deceased very often. No pawnBroker was examined and no Pawn chit was also produced. So only on thebasis of the above said irregularities and discrepancies in theprosecution case, the learned trial Judge has come to a correctconclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyondany reasonable doubt against the accused. Under such circumstances, Ido not find any irregularity or infirmity or any perverseness in thefindings of the learned trial Judge to warrant any interference fromthis court. Point is answered accordingly.15. In the result, the revision is dismissed ,confirming theJudgment in S.C.NO.229 of 2001 on the file of the Court of AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge(FTC No.5)Tirupur.sgSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC No.5) Tirupur.2. -Do- thro' The Principal Session Judge, Coimbatore3 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras4 Inspector of Police, Cheyar Police Station,Avinasi Taluk, Coimbatore District.+ 1 C.C. to MR.M.SATHYANARAYANAN, Advocate SR No.25001+ 1 C.C. to MR.K.GOVI GANESAN, Advocate SR No.24701HPR (CO)TES (08/05/2007) Crl.R.C.No.2067/2002