High Court · 2012

BAIL SLIPThe Accused 1 and 2 namely 1.Sundaramoorthy and 2.Chandrawas/were directed to be released on bail as per order of this Courtdated 21.4.2004 and made in Crl.M.P.No 4626/2004 in Crl.R.C.No697/04on the file of this court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAMCrl.R.C.No.697 of 20041.Sundaramoorthy2.Chandra... Petitioners/Petitioners/AppellantsAccused Rank 1 & IIVersusThe Deputy Superintendent of Police,Nagapattinam,Tittacherry Police Station,Nagapattinam District. ... Respondent/Respondent/ComplainantRevision petition filed against the judgment dated29.10.2003 made in C.A.No.52 of 2003 on the file of the learnedDistrict and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam confirming and modifyingthe judgment of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,Nagapattinam dated 27.6.2003 made in S.C.No.188 of 2002.For Petitioners : Mr.A.Annadurai,Legal Aid CounselFor Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj,Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E RThe revision petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 and 2 inS.C.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal AssistantSessions Judge, Nagapattinam.2. Totally there are three accused in this case. All thethree accused were charged for the offence under Sections 498-A and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 304 (B) I.P.C. But, they were convicted only for the offence underSection 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorousimprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default,to undergo six months imprisonment each and they were acquitted forthe offence under Section 304 (B) I.P.C. 3. Challenging that conviction and sentence, all the threeaccused preferred an appeal before the learned District and SessionsJudge, Nagapattinam, in C.A.No.52 of 2008. The learned District andSessions Judge, Nagapattinam, acquitted the third accused from thecharge under Section 498-A I.P.C. also and confirmed the convictionimposed on Accused No.1 and 2, but reduced the sentence ofimprisonment from two years rigorous imprisonment to one yearrigorous imprisonment.4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, AccusedNos.1 and 2 have preferred this criminal revision petition beforethis Court.5. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by thelearned Senior Counsel Mr.Chellaiah that both the petitioners / A.1and A.2 served the sentence of imprisonment fully. Pending revision,the first petitioner / A.1 had died. The Sub Inspector of Police,Thittacherry filed a copy of the death certificate of the firstpetitioner/ A.1 and as per the death certificate, the first accuseddied on 9.2.2012.6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Priya. The marriage of thedeceased was arranged with the third accused. Petitioners 1 and 2 /A.1 and A.2 are the parents of the third accused. The marriage wasperformed on 27.5.2001. At the time of marriage, 7 sovereigns ofgold, cash of Rs.7,000/- and other articles were given as sridhana.After the marriage, the deceased was living with her husband. Atthat time, P.W.1, the father of the deceased was residing in Chennai.After marriage, the deceased did not come to Chennai. Even though areception function was arranged in Chennai after the marriage, theaccused did not send the deceased to Chennai. Therefore, the motherof the deceased consumed acid and died in the hospital. A telegramwas sent to the accused about the same. The third accused and thedaughter of P.W.1, the deceased Priya came to the place of P.W.1. Atthat time, as P.W.1 was not having money, the third accused handedover the chain of his wife to P.W.1 and it was pledged and an amountof Rs.6,000/- was obtained, which was spent for cremation expenses.Thereafter, the third accused and his wife returned to their house.When P.W.1 asked the accused to send his daughter for the month ofAudi, the accused have refused to send her saying that the jewelwhich was pledged, had not been returned. They have tortured thedeceased since the jewel was not redeemed by P.W.1 and did not handover to the accused. Therefore, on 10.9.2001, the deceased had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ committed suicide by hanging.7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.E.Chelliah appearing for thesecond petitioner submitted that there is no material to show thatthe deceased was ill-treated by the accused and the trial Courthaving acquitted the third accused, erred in convicting the mother ofthe third accused relying on the same set of evidence. The onlypiece of evidence that P.W.1 did not redeem the jewel, which waspledged, and did not hand over to the accused, is not sufficient toconvict the second petitioner / A.2, in the absence of any specificevidence that the deceased was ill-treated by her. Learned SeniorCounsel further submitted that even the evidence of P.W.2, who is thebrother of P.W.1 does not speak about any cruelty and the evidence ofP.W.4, who is an employee of P.W.2 also does not reveal about thedeceased being subjected to cruelty by the accused.8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)submitted that both P.W.1, the father of the deceased and P.W.2, thebrother of P.W.1 have deposed that after the marriage, the deceasedwas not sent to the place of P.W.1, even for the marriage receptionwhich was arranged by the parents of the deceased and the deceasedwas ill-treated for the reason that the jewel which was pledged byP.W.1 was not redeemed and was not returned to them. The petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 were insisting for the return of the jewel and theyhave not sent the deceased to her parent's house even for the monthof Audi. This deliberate act of the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 isill-treatment to the deceased. Learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) further pointed out that P.W.4, in his evidence, has statedthat he received a phone call from the deceased, who informed himthat she was subjected to cruelty in the house of the accused.9. This Court considered the submissions and perused therecords.10. Of course, it is not a case of dowry death. Thepetitioners / A.1 and A.2 were convicted only for the offence underSection 498-A I.P.C. The appellate Court acquitted the thirdaccused, the husband of the deceased even from the charge underSection 498-A I.P.C. The question that now arises for considerationis, since the third accused / the husband of the deceased beingacquitted from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., whether themother of the third accused could be convicted for the offence underSection 498-A I.P.C.11. It appears from the evidence that after the marriage,the deceased was not sent to her parent's house. She was preventedfrom going to her parent's house. Even though after the marriage, amarriage reception function was arranged by her parents, the deceasedwas not sent to their home. Hence, the mother of the deceasedcommitted suicide by consuming acid. The third accused and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased had gone to the cremation of the mother of the deceased. Itappears from the evidence that the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 did notgo for the cremation. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners /A.1 and A.2 were stubborn in their attitude. The jewel which wasgiven to the deceased at the time of marriage by her father, had beenutilized for getting money for the cremation expenses. The saidjewel had not been redeemed by P.W.1. In the said situation, thesecond petitioner / A.2 refused to send her daughter in law to herparent's house. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that whenP.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused for taking the deceasedto the house of P.W.1, the second petitioner / A.2 refused to sendher stating that only if the jewel is returned, the deceased would besent along with them. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 thatthe deceased had informed them that she was subjected to ill-treatment as the jewel was not returned. Even P.W.4, who had noanimosity against the accused, had deposed that he received a phonecall from the deceased and she informed him that she was subjected toharassment.12. Therefore, evidence is available to the extent that thedeceased was subjected to harassment by the petitioners / A.1 and A.2by making unlawful demand for return of the jewel. Hence, theconviction and sentence imposed on the second petitioner / A.2 areconfirmed. 13. In fine, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.However, it appears that the second petitioner / A.2 had alreadyundergone the sentence of imprisonment fully imposed on her.14. Ms.B.Sujatha, Women Lawyer Association, Chennai wasappointed as Legal Aide Counsel to defend the case of thepetitioners. Since she did not appear for the petitioners, the LegalAid Authority is directed to pay the remuneration to Mr.A.Annadurai,who was appointed by the Court as Legal Aid Counsel. Sd/-Deputy Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsbi To 1.The District and Sessions Judge, Nagappattinam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagappattinam.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, Tittacherry Police Station, Nagapattinam District.4. The Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.5. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.697 of 2004AD {CO}TP/23.8.2012.