Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 417 (MAD)

Narayanaswamy v. Shankar & Others

2006-02-20

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Learned Fast Track Judge, Kanchipuram in SC No.195 of 2002 dated 7.4.2003.) This Revision Case has been filed by the de facto complainant/P.W.1 against the Judgment of the learned Fast Track Judge, Kanchipuram in S.C.No.195 of 2002 dated 7.4.2003, as per which respondents/accused Nos.1 to 9 were acquitted in respect of charges framed under sections 498A and 306 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial court is that the deceased Kanagavalli, daughter of P.W.1 married the first accused in Tirupathi, without informing their parents and relatives and subsequently registered their marriage before the Sub Registrar, Uthiramerur and the marriage was the love marriage. After marriage, the deceased was living with her husband/accused No.1 along with the relatives accused Nos.2 to 9. The deceased was threatened that she should not have any connection with her parents and she should not see them also. First accused also joined with A2 to A9 and used to insult the deceased showing the poverty of her parents and also demanded dowry. They also used to beat the deceased with broom stick and hands and also used to spit on her face. They caused cruelty by scolding her in abusive manner and the deceased unable to bear with the harassment caused, committed suicide on 13.8.2000 in a neem tree situated behind the house of her husband by hanging herself with her sari. 3. The case was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 9 under sections 498-A and 306 IPC, on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1, father of the deceased. The Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet before the trial court. 4. P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined before the trial court on the side of the prosecution and Ex.P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the accused one Murugesan as D.W.1 was examined. 5. The Sessions Court after considering such evidence adduced, arrived at the finding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved over the same, the de facto complainant namely, P.W.1/father of the deceased, has filed this Revision Case. 6. Heard Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the de facto complainant namely, P.W.1/father of the deceased, has filed this Revision Case. 6. Heard Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The learned Senior counsel for the Revision Petitioner argued that the acquittal of the accused without examining and considering the evidence let in through P.Ws.1 & 2, who are the father and mother of the deceased, about the torture, ill-treatment and assault caused by accused Nos.1 to 9, the judgment of acquittal is not proper. It is further submitted that the cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased by accused Nos.1 to 9 has also not been properly considered by the trial court. In this way, he further submitted that after love marriage with accused No.1, the deceased was living in her matrimonial house and the said occurrence happened on 13.8.2000, after delivering a child by the deceased. She committed suicide by hanging herself in the neem tree in the open space situated backside of her matrimonial house. It is further argued that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have spoken to the cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased by A1 to A9 and the same has not been properly considered by the trial Court. The evidence of P.W.4, who is the younger brother's son of P.W.1 who speaks about the cruelty caused to the deceased by A1 to A9, has also not been properly considered by the trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer also speaks to the effect that it is the case of dowry harassment. So, it is submitted that in view of the torture, harassment and assault caused on many occasions, the deceased has committed suicide. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar V. State Of Chhattishgarh ( AIR 2001 SC 3837 ), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though under section 113A of the Evidence Act, presumption as to its abetment has to be drawn having regard to 'all other circumstances of the case', the expression 'all other circumstances of case' requires that cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide has to be established before drawing presumption. In that case, the deceased died after writing letter to her father narrating her request with her in-laws for return of ornaments given for repairs and about the beaten and pushing her outside the house by the accused/husband. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision reported in the case of Pawan Kumar V. State Of Haryana ( AIR 2001 SC 1324 ) with regard to presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act. In the said case, the deceased died due to burn injuries after giving a dying declaration. The other decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner is State Of Karnataka Vs. M.V.Manjunathegowda And Another (2003 CRL.L.J. 900). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the omission and contradiction with regard to demand and payment of dowry in the evidence of witnesses, rustic villagers, brother and father of deceased and examined after more than two years of solemnization of marriage and in such a situation, certain discrepancies bound to occur in the form of omission and they cannot be considered as fatal to their evidentiary value, otherwise trustworthy. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused argued that the trial court after considering the evidence properly and since no case is established and proved by the prosecution, rightly acquitted the accused and therefore the judgment of acquittal need not be reversed. The learned counsel has also pointed out that there have been improvement in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and mother of the deceased, and then submitted that initially the case was registered under section 302 IPC and after post-mortem, the same has been registered under sections 306 and 498-A IPC and as such, there have been change in the stand taken by the prosecution witness from stage to stage. 10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision reported in the case of State Of Haryana Vs. Jai Prakash And Others (2000 CRL.L.J.4995(2)), in which it is held that the improvement in testimony of two star prosecution witness viz., father and brother of deceased from stage to stage, the acquittal not liable to be interfered with. 11. Jai Prakash And Others (2000 CRL.L.J.4995(2)), in which it is held that the improvement in testimony of two star prosecution witness viz., father and brother of deceased from stage to stage, the acquittal not liable to be interfered with. 11. In the complaint Ex.P-1 preferred by P.W.1, father of the deceased, it is stated that whenever his daughter, the deceased used to come to his house, she used to complain about the abuses and quarrel made by her mother-in-law and also about the demand of dowry by her and who used to console her that it will be all right in course of time and on 13/14.8.2000 at the early morning at 2.00 a.m. his brother-in-law Sekar came and informed him that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself due to dowry harassment. Therefore, it is clear that there is no specific allegation with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry by the respondents/accused. The marriage between A1 and the deceased was the love marriage and nearly after one year and on the 26th day after delivery of child, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in a neem tree behind the house of her husband by hanging with her sari. From that no inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself due to cruelty and dowry harassment caused to her. 12. As observed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his report Ex.P-10 has stated that there was no dowry harassment and after causing the death of the deceased and after several persons beating, the body of the deceased could have been taken and to make it appear that she committed suicide by tying with her sari in the neem tree, they could have left. In Ex.P-6 the offence has been altered on 29.6.2000, but the same was received only on 15.11.2000 in the Court in which it is stated that because A1 wanted to marry his sister's daughter caused cruelty and harassment which resulted for committing suicide by hanging herself in the neem tree with her sari. In Ex.P-6 the offence has been altered on 29.6.2000, but the same was received only on 15.11.2000 in the Court in which it is stated that because A1 wanted to marry his sister's daughter caused cruelty and harassment which resulted for committing suicide by hanging herself in the neem tree with her sari. As rightly observed by the Additional Sessions Judge, doctor P.W.17 has given her opinion in Ex.P-9 on 20.12.2000 that the deceased could have committed suicide by hanging herself, but even as early as on 26.9.2000, it has been mentioned as such in Ex.P-6, which document was received actually in Court on 15.11.2000, by the Deputy Superintendent, Madurantakam, which makes it clear that Ex.P-6 was prepared by putting ante date. There are also some discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence while her son-in-law beat her daughter, the deceased, she saw the occurrence and also seen the injuries on the body of the deceased. But no injuries were noticed in the body of the deceased as per post-mortem certificate, which would suggest that she did not commit suicide due to cruelty and harassment caused to her. Further, there is also no evidence let in on the side of prosecution that the accused demanded property, jewel or cash. Further, there is also delay in receiving the documents Exs.P-6 to P-8 and also the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge, considering such evidence adduced on the prosecution side rightly found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused in respect of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. Such finding need not be disturbed. 13. In the result, in view of the discussions made above, this Criminal Revision fails and is dismissed. The Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Judge), Kanchipuram in S.C.No.195 of 2002 dated 7.4.2003 is confirmed.