Allowed

Saravanan v. the Deputy Superintendent

Madras HC24 Jun 2016CRL MP(MD)/3973/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted appeal bail to two appellants convicted under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for dowry-related suicide and instigation. The court suspended imprisonment, noting prima facie case due to lack of corroboration and peaceful relationship evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal bail granted; imprisonment suspended; execution of bond with two sureties for Rs.20,000 each; monthly reporting ordered.

Saravanan Vs the Deputy Superintendent — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice P.DEVADASS

¶4

CRL MP(MD) No.3973 of 2016

¶5

IN CRL A(MD) No.153 of 2016

¶6

1 SARAVANAN 2 RAMAIYAN ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED

¶7

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALANGUDI, (REGUNATHAPURAM POLICE STATION,

¶8

CR. NO.25/2014) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence pronounced against the petitioners in the judgement in S.C.No.14 of 2015 dated 12.04.2016 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

¶10

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S R.P.RAMACHANTHIRAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.P.KANDASAMY,Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side) on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶11

A1 and A2, who are son and father, in S.C.No.14 of 2015, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, while challenging their conviction and sentence, seek appeal bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

¶12

2. In the said Court, they were convicted and sentenced as detailed below:

¶13

(i) A1 was found guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C., sentenced to 3 years R.I., and fined to Rs.1000/-, i/d 6 months R.I.

¶14

(ii) A1 was found guilty under Section 306 I.P.C., sentenced to 10 years R.I., and fined to Rs.1000/-, i/d 6 months R.I.

¶15

(iii)A2 was found guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C., sentenced to 2 years R.I., and fined to Rs.1000/-, i/d 6 months R.I.

¶16

(iv) A2 was found guilty under Section 306 I.P.C., sentenced to 3 years R.I., and fined to Rs.1000/-, i/d 6 months R.I.

¶17

3. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amounts were paid. Now, A1 and A2 are lodged in Central Jail, Trichy.

¶18

4. The love marriage between A1 and the deceaseddaughter of P.Ws.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 2 and sister of P.W.3 took place on 15.05.2012. There was disparity between the lovers in their economic and educational status. Thereafter, on 05.05.2014, in her matrimonial home, in Pappakudi situate

¶19

¶20

in Karambakudi in Pudukottai District, she committed suicide. A1 and A2 were prosecuted for having harassed the victim for having not obtained her share of property from her parents P.Ws.1 and 2 and unable to bear the cruelty, she committed suicide.

¶21

5. The Trial Court believed the said evidence and convicted and sentenced them stated already.

¶22

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, because P.W.1 has lost his daughter, he has implicated the petitioners. He has not approved the love marriage of his daughter with A1. Even immediately after their love marriage, a Panchayat was held in the Village under the presidentship of a person called 'Iyer' and the matter went to Police Station, where P.W.1 received all the jewels from his daughter. Thereafter, he did not see her. He did not like the way in which his daughter married.

¶23

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that before P.W.11 / R.D.O., Kamarudeen and Saravanan, who are neighbours of the deceased, revealed that the deceased and A1 led a peaceful life, there was cordial relationship between them. In such circumstances, R.D.O., did not find any dowry harassment.

¶24

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even taking the allegations as such, when there is no intention on the part of A1 and A2 pressurizing, instigating the deceased to commit suicide, an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., will not arise. There is no ioto of evidence that they have demanded dowry.

¶25

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the prosecution thoroughly failed to establish the charges levelled against the petitioners. There is prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. They were on bail during the Trial Court proceedings.

¶26

10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that A1 and A2 have harassed the deceased. They are avaricious persons. Later, A1 loved his wife's share of property than his wife. Property became so dear to him than his wife. She committed suicide. It is because of the harassment of A1 and A2.

¶27

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned Judgment and the relevant materials on record.

¶28

12. P.W.11 / R.D.O. conducted inquest. He has recorded statement from the witnesses. His enquiry revealed that there is no abnormality between the spouses. As Kamarudeen and Saravanan, neighhours of the deceased, did not give any incriminating witness, prosecution thought it fit to avoid them from the witness box. It is pertinent to note that as the deceased married out of her own volition forgetting her parents, P.W.1 is not interested in her and he has obtained her jewels also. When such being the position, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the fact that it would be highly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imaginary and unbelievable that there were demand of dowry in the form of share of property. It is also contended that neither A1 nor A2 had not intended, wished or instigated the victim to commit suicide.

¶29

¶30

13. In the facts and circumstances, I find certain eminently arguable points are involved in this criminal appeal. That apart, they were on bail throughout the Trial Court proceedings. It will take sometime for the disposal of the criminal appeal. In the circumstances, I find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Thus, I am inclined to grant them appeal bail.

¶31

14. Ordered as under:

¶32

(i) Appeal bail granted to the petitioners. (ii) Their Sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended. (iii)There shall be two sureties for each petitioner, they and each petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

¶33

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶34

sd/24/06/2016

¶35

/ TRUE COPY /

¶36

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶37

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,PUDUKKOTTAI.

¶38

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,TRICHY.

¶39

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, REGUNATHAPURAM POLICE STATION, ALANGUDI,PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶41

+1. C.C. to M/S R.P.RAMACHANTHIRAN Advocate SR.No.32947

¶42

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.3973 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.153 of 2016 Date :24/06/2016 PA/AAL-MPA/SAR II/27.06.2016/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saravanan v. the Deputy Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. the Deputy Superintendent

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

Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Ponnuchamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Auspin Jeba Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnapandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

T.S. Kumaravel Vs the Inspector of Police