High Court allowed criminal appeal against death sentence and conviction under sections 302 and 498 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the injuries.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants released on bail. Bail bond discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BAIL SLIP
The Appellants/Accused Nos.A1 and A3 viz. Purushothaman and Kasthuri (A3) was directed to the released on bail as per order of this Court in MP.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.440/2014 and MP.5/2014 in Crl.A.No.440/2014, dt.16.9.2014 and 9.3.2015 respectively.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.440 of 2014 1.Purushothaman 2.Manigandan 3.Kasthuri ... Appellants/A1 to A3 -vs-
State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Maduranthakam Division, Acharapakkam Police Station.... Respondent (Cr.No.43/2010)
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 made in S.C.No.181 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu, by allowing this appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.K.Shanmugam
J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.)
The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.181 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused as detailed below:-
| Charge Nos. | Ac | cus | ed | Section of law | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First charge | A.1 | to | A.3 | 498- | A I.P.C., |
| Second Charge | A.1 A.2 |
and | 302 | I.P.C., | |
| Third Charge | A.3 | 302 | r/w 34 I.P.C., |
By judgment, dated 12.08.2014, the Trial Court convicted all the three accused under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The first appellant/first accused is the husband of one Vijayalakshmi @ Neelaveni, who is the deceased in this case. The Accused 2 and 3 are the brother and mother respectively of the first accused. The marriage between the first accused and the deceased was celebrated on 02.09.2009. After the marriage, the deceased was living with all the three accused as a joint family at Thozhupedu Village. It is alleged that after the marriage, all the three accused used to demand the deceased to go and get money from her parents. Accordingly, the deceased used to get money to the tune of Rs.100, 200, 500, 1000 or 2000/-. It is further alleged that after some time, all the three accused, on one occasion, shouted at the deceased that the jewels presented at the time of marriage by her parents were not sufficient. It is alleged that the second accused on one occasion, even had beaten the deceased. It is further alleged that on 30.01.2010, when the deceased was at the house of the accused, the first accused dashed the head of the deceased against the wall. The second accused followed him and dashed the head of the deceased against the Wall. The deceased died out of the injuries sustained. The third accused had shared the common intention with Accused 1 and 2 in causing the death of the deceased. Thus, according to the respondent, the accused had committed offences as charged.
the car did not stop. P.W.1 went to the house of the accused, where, he found the father-in-law of the deceased. He told P.W.1 that the deceased was not alright and the second respondent had taken her to Acharapakkam Hospital. When P.W.1 contacted the deceased through cell phone, the second accused told him that he admitted the deceased in the Maruvathur Hospital. When he rushed to the hospital, the Doctor declared her dead. P.W.1 noticed some injuries on the neck of the deceased. Therefore, he went to Acharapakkam Police Station and made a complaint at 10.30 a.m. on 31.01.2010. P.W.14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2010 under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents viz., Complaint [Ex.P1] and FIR [Ex.P8] to the Court.
“Well built body of a female with extremities-- NAD
Following ante-mortem injuries seen on the body (1) Diffuse swelling seen over the right and left cheek O/d. Fracture de location seen over over right and left tempero mandibular joint and right angle of mandible with surrounding areas of contusions.
(2) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm seen over
chin
(3) Fracture seen over right side of hyoid bone with surrounding areas of contusions (inward compression)
Stomach empty. Spleen - Absent. Uterus - Normal in size, Cavity - empty. Both tubes and ovaries - NAD
Ex.P10 is the Post-mortem Certificate. She gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to cumulative effects of compression force and the death would have been occurred 38 - 40 hours prior to post-mortem.
that on 30.01.2010 at 8.10 p.m., when he was at the Government Hospital, Madhuranthagam, the deceased was brought dead. P.W.13 - the Revenue Divisional Officer has spoken about the inquest held by him. P.W.14 - the then Sub-Inspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the case and the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.15 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.16 is the Doctor in a private clinic known as Pikash Hospital at Acharapakkam. According to him, at 5.30 p.m., on 30.01.2010, a woman was brought to his clinic for treatment. He examined the woman and since her condition was bad, he advised them to take her to Government Hospital. He has not stated anything against the accused. He has not even stated that the woman who was examined by him was the deceased. P.W.18 - the Magistrate has stated about the the statements recorded by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the witnesses. P.Ws.17 and 19 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court),
Chengalpattu,
2.The Judicial magistrate,Maduranthagam.
3.do thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Maduranthakam Division,
Acharapakkam Police Station.
6.The Superintedent of Police, Chengalpet.
7.The District collector,
Chengalpet.
8.The District General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.
9.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.K.Shenmugam, advocate,sr.37352.
bvr(co)
krd 29/8
Crl.A.No.440 of 2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court's conviction for murder and cruelty under Sections 302 and 498 IPC was based on sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution established that the accused were present in the house to cause the injuries to the deceased.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Purushothaman
Manigandan
Kasthuri
State
S. NAGAMUTHU
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
