Dismissed

V.Ramadoss v. the State Rep by

Madras HC5 Sept 2014CRL RC/1531/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision seeking to revise an acquittal under IPC 306 for suicide, the High Court dismissed the petition. Upholding the trial Court's order, the High Court reiterated findings that the investigation was flawed due to a delayed FIR registration and an erroneous inquest procedure, rendering the prosecution case suspect.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge on 06.12.2007. Criminal Revision stands dismissed.

V.Ramadoss Vs the State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1531 of 2013

¶6

V.Ramadoss .. Petitioner/PW2

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Udaiyarpalayam Police Station,
Perambalur District.
Crime No.320 of 2004 ...Ist Respondent/Complainant
2.Raja
3.Selvaraj
4.Kantha
5.Ravi
6.Latha .. Respondents 2 to 6/Accused 1 to 5

¶9

Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in S.C.No.130 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Perambalur,and revise the order dated 06.12.2007 in S.C.No.130/2007.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaramkumar, Government Advocate (Crl.side)(R1) Mr.G.Peranban (R2 to R6)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This revision is preferred against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.130 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Perambalur, under judgment dated 06.12.2007.

¶13

In brief, the prosecution case was that the deceased/daughter of PW-1 and A1 shared a love affair and A1 promised to marry her. On coming to know that all the accused were planning to perform the marriage of A1 with another, the deceased along with her uncle went to the house of A1 and requested him to

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

marry her. A1 refused to accede to her request and all the other accused abused her. On 19.12.2004 at about 01.00 p.m., the deceased girl hung herself owing to the shame suffered. On the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No.320 of 2004 on the file of the first respondent. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offence u/s.306 IPC and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.130 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Perambalur.

¶16

Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined and 11 exhibits were marked. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials, the trial Court rendered a finding of acquittal primarily on the reasoning that the investigation had failed to properly carry out its duty.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) as also learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6.

¶18

The trial Court found that as against an alleged occurrence on 19.12.2004 at 01.00 p.m., an FIR had been registered only at 22.00 hours on such day, that too, not at the instance of the relatives of the deceased but at the instance of PW-1, Village Administrative Officer. As against the evidence of PWs.2 and 3/ father and mother of the deceased, that the first accused refused to marry her and the other accused abused her, it is the defence evidence that they had knowledge of the love affair between A1 and the deceased, that they had accepted the same, that PW-2 asked them to wait for some more time to perform the marriage and since A1 was an uneducated person, PW-2 decided to arrange his daughter's marriage with his sister's son, who is an educated person, owing to which the deceased committed suicide. Though PW-3, has deposed that the accused abused the deceased on the occurrence day, she and PW-5 have been included as witnesses by the subsequent investigating officer, PW-16, after a period of one year after the occurrence. There was no reason why these persons initially have not been examined. Having registered a case under section 174 Cr.P.C. and having knowledge of the procedure that inquest should be conducted by a Executive Magistrate, the conduct of PW-14 in conducting inquest after receiving the First Information Report, was erroneous. Though other reasons stand informed in the judgment of the trial Court in arriving at its finding of acquittal of the accused, this Court would find proper the judgment of the trial Court suspecting the genuineness of the prosecution case both on the ground of delay in registration of FIR as also that of improper investigation. The order of the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

In the result, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Perambalur, in S.C.No.130 of 2007 on 06.12.2007, is confirmed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Udaiyarpalayam Police Station,
Perambalur District.
2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Permabalur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr..S.Kamadevan ,Advocate, SR.No.42360
1 cc to Mr. G.Peranban ,Advocate, SR.No.41857
Crl.R.C.No.1531 of 2013
ctk(co)
pmk.28.10.2014

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Ramadoss v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramadoss v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Annamalai Vs State of Tamilnadu

Deva Prakash Vs Roselin Deva Prakash

Rakesh P Sheth, Vs P.Devaki, Sub Inspector Labour

M.Senthil @ Senthilkumar, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Gaffar Khan Vs Rashida Khan

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police