Judgment:
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the lower Court and set aside the order, dated 14.10.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.108 of 2011.)
1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the convictions and sentences, dated 14.10.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.108 of 2011, by the District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has married the deceased Tamilmani @ Thangam during September 2008. After marriage, both of them have lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given 23 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The accused has demanded two more sovereigns of gold jewels. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have promised to give the same after three months from the date of marriage. After lapse of three months from the date of marriage, the accused has consistently demanded two sovereigns of gold jewels from the deceased. If the parents of the deceased have not given the same, he would marry his lover by name Priya and in that way, the accused has threatened the deceased. Further, the accused has demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a car. Since the deceased has not been able to bear the cruelty caused by the accused, on 12.03.2009, in the house of the accused, the deceased has committed suicide. After occurrence, the father of the deceased, by name, Amirdhalingam, has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.69 of 2009.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer, viz., P.W.12 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements to conduct inquest and accordingly, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, viz., P.W.9 has conducted inquest. The investigating officer has also made arrangements for conducting autopsy and accordingly, Dr.Saravanan (P.W.11) has conducted autopsy and he found the following internal and external injuries.
"External Injuries: 1.Ligature Mark is present which is extending across the neck about 4 cm from the nuchal line in the right side, to the left side of neck below the angle of mandible, which is 27 cms in length, 4 cm breadth on right side, 2 cm breadth left side, from right to left, the ligature mark decreased in breadth.
Internal Examination: 1. Hyoid Bone-7 fracture present. X ray taken. 2.Ribs-intact. 3.Heart-contained 100 ml of fluid blood, c/s congested. 4.Lungs-both lungs c/s congested adult weight 5.stomach-empty 6.Liver 1600 gms, c/s-congested. 7.Spleen 150 gms, c/s-Congested 8.Kidneys-both 120 gms, c/s-congested. 9.Bladder-Empty. 10.Uterus 500 gms, Uterine cavity contained a fresh dead female fetus. 11.Skull-intact. 12.Brain 1400 gms. Normal."
The postmortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P8. After transfer of P.W.12, his successor in office, viz., P.W.13, has conducted further investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.11 of 2010.
4. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Krishnagiri Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.108 of 2011 and subsequently, made over to the trial Court.
5. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed first charge against the accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; second charge against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and third charge against him under Section 304-B of the said Code and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 to 16 have been marked.
7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, Exs.D1 to D4 have been marked.
8. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/- with usual default clause. Further, he has been found guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- with usual default clause. The trial Court has acquitted the accused in respect of the charge framed under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the accused, as appellant.
9. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the accused has married the deceased during September 2008 and after marriage, both of them have lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused and at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given 23 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused and further, at the time of marriage, they promised to give two more sovereigns of gold jewels after a lapse of three months from the date of marriage and after a lapse of three months from marriage, the parents of the deceased have not given two more sovereigns of gold jewels. Under the said circumstances, the accused has used to threaten the deceased by way of saying that if her parents have not complied with the assurance given by them in respect of two more sovereigns of gold jewels, he would marry his lover by name Priya and further, he also demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased for purchasing a car and since the deceased has not been able to meet out the demands made by the accused as well as cruelty caused by him, on 12.03.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., she committed suicide in the house of the accused.
10. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex.P1, wherein it has been clearly stated about the details of cruelty and also demands made by the accused. The author of Ex.P1, viz., father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1 and her mother has been examined as P.W.2, the younger brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 and elder brother of P.W.1 has been examined as P.W.4 and some independent witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.5 to 8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses mentioned supra, coupled with the materials found in Ex.P1, has found the accused guilty under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has repletedly contended that on the basis of evidence given by P.Ws.5 to 8, the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out and in Ex.P1, complaint, no specific torture nor cruelty, alleged to have been caused by the accused, has been mentioned and further, P.Ws.1 to 4 have given exaggerated evidence and the trial Court, without considering lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution so as to attract the penal provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has erroneously invited convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused and the same are liable to be set aside.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in Ex.P1, it has been clinchingly mentioned about the ordeals meted out by the deceased at the hands of accused from the inception of marriage and further, P.W.1 has clearly narrated about the unreasonable demands made by the accused prior to marriage and after marriage and P.Ws.2 to 4 have also given corroborative evidence and the trial Court, after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record on the side of the prosecution, has rightly invited convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the same do not warrant interference.
13. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to meticulously analyse as to whether necessary evidence is available on the side of the prosecution, so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal code?
14. As adverted to earlier, the defacto complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and his specific evidence is that initially the accused has demanded 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently, he reduced to 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and prior to marriage, he has given Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused. On 14.09.2008, marriage has been performed and at the time of marriage, 23 sovereigns of gold jewels have been given. After marriage, the accused has demanded 2 more sovereigns of gold jewels and directed the deceased to get the same. Further, he deposed to the effect that after 15 days, he and his wife have met the deceased and she told them that the accused has tortured her by way of demanding two more sovereigns of gold jewels. After a lapse of 10 days, the deceased has contacted him over phone and told that the accused has tortured her by way of demanding two more sovereigns of gold jewels and also threatened her by way of saying that he is going to marry his former lover viz., Priya. Further, he would say in his evidence that the deceased has reported him and his wife that the accused has attacked her. After some time, he directed his wife to go to the house of the accused and accordingly she has gone there and the accused reported her that she has not brought up her daughter properly and further directed her to send the deceased to cine field.
15. As stated supra, the wife of P.W.1 has been examined as P.W.2 and younger brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 and elder brother of P.W.1 has been examined as P.W.4. All of them have given consistent evidence to the effect that from the date of marriage, the accused has caused cruelty to the deceased.
16. In fact, P.W.1 has marshalled the details of cruelties caused by the accused to the deceased. The evidence given by P.W.1 has been clearly corroborated by the remaining evidence viz., P.Ws.2 to 4.
17. From cumulative reading of the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4 and also from the materials found in Ex.P1, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has advanced his argument only on the basis of evidence given by P.Ws.5 to 8. The witnesses viz., P.Ws.5 to 8 are independent witnesses and they have spoken about the relationship between the accused and deceased. Simply because one of them has spoken to the effect that both the accused and deceased have gone to river for washing clothes, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that both of them have maintained cordial relationship.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has also relied upon certain materials found in Ex.P5, inquest report. In Ex.P5, it is stated that the parents of the deceased have reported him that there is a suspicion in the death of their daughter. Even in the statements given to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the parents of the deceased have stated their suspicion over the death of their daughter. Further, in Ex.P5 it is mentioned that some injuries are found on the body of the deceased. No explanation has been given on the side of the accused as to how those injuries have had happened.
20. It has already been pointed out that P.W.1 has narrated the entire demand made by the accused even prior to marriage and after marriage. Further, he deposed to the effect that after marriage, the deceased has met chronic ordeals at the hands of the accused. The evidence given by P.W.1 has been clearly corroborated by the evidence given by P.Ws.2 to 4. It is not an exaggeration to say that the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4 have clearly ensconced the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be accepted.
21. It is seen from the records that within a short span of six months from the date of marriage, the deceased has passed away. Further, the accused has caused untold miseries to the deceased. Since the accused has caused licentious and flagitious acts towards the accused, no leniency can be shown in awarding sentence. The trial Court, after considering the gravity of offences and also the nature of cruelty caused by the accused, has rightly found him guilty under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also rightly imposed sentences and therefore, the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.
In fine, this criminal appeal is dismissed. The convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, in Sessions case No.108 of 2011, are confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.