Allowed

John Vencent v. State Rep by

Madras HC17 Aug 2017CRL A/359/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction for dowry harassment and abetment of suicide. The court found the prosecution witnesses were not credible and awarded acquittal to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; Appellant acquitted of all charges; Fine refunded; Bail bond cancelled.

What the court decided

AI extract

John Vencent Vs State Rep by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶19

PW-11, father of the deceased, preferred Ex.P5, complaint, on 07.08.2006 at 14.30 hours. PW-7, Sub Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry, registered a case in Crime No.595 of 2006 on the file of respondent u/s.173 Cr.P.C. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P4. PW-8, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up investigation on 07.08.2006, visited the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P3 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P4– Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses. He examined PWs-3 and 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he went to SRM Hospital, examined PW-2 Doctor and recorded his statement. PW-8 also went to Government Hospital, Chengalpet and saw the body of the deceased. PW-9, RDO conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayathars. The inquest report is Ex.P8. PW-8 examined PWs-1, 11 and 12 and recorded their statements. He examined PW-7, Sub Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry and recorded her statement. He altered the FIR to one under Section 306 IPC and sent a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate. On 30.09.2006 PW-8 handed over the investigation to PW-13 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet. On 26.10.2006 at about 8.00.a.m, PW-13 arrested the accused in front of his house. On the same day at about 9.00.a.m, he went to Guduvanchery Police station along with accused and sent the accused to judicial custody. On 05.11.2006, he examined PW-6 and recorded his statement. He obtained photos and negatives, which were marked as M.O.1. On 19.12.2006, he obtained post-mortem report and examined PW-10 Doctor and recorded her statement. The post-mortem report is Ex.P13. PW10 forwarded the viscera deceased for chemical analysis. On 10.01.2007, PW-13 examined Head Constable and recorded his statement. On 18.01.2007, he examined PW-9, recorded his statement and obtained PW-9 RDO's report. On completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpet alleging offences u/s. 304(B), 498(A) and 306 IPC. Upon committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.163 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu for offences u/s. 304(B), 498(A) and 306 IPC.

¶24

P.W.11 father of the deceased has preferred Ex.P5Complaint. Therein he has informed of an amicable relationship between the deceased and the accused and not knowing the reason for deceased resorting to suicide. P.W.7 is the Head Constable who registered the FIR. PW-9 is the RDO who conducted inquest and Ex.P9 is the Inquest report. Both the person as also the report inform that no suspicion was cast upon the appellant/accused and the reason for the deceased resorting to suicide was not known. It is only PW-12, brother of the deceased who has spoken to having been present at the time of occurrence and of an on going dispute between the appellant/accused and his wife regards pledged jewels and of the appellant/accused accusing the deceased wife of causing a wedge between him and his brother as also beating and seeking to throttle her. He has claimed to not having informed the RDO at the inquest, since he had been threatened by the appellant/accused. P.W.8- the initial Investigating Officer has deposed to PW-12 not having informed him of any dispute or wrongful action of the accused. P.W.13 is the Investigation Officer who filed the charge sheet. P.W-1 is the sister of the deceased. She has spoken to having been informed by PW-12, her brother, of the death of the deceased on the evening of 06.08.2006 and that PW-12 stated he would inform other particulars in person and disconnected the telephone call. P.W.5 is a Police Constable and P.W.6 is a photographer PW-2 was the Doctor at hospital to whom the deceased was brought at about 03.15 p.m on 06.08.2006. He has spoken to the deceased having been brought by the appellant/accused who informed that the deceased had consumed insecticide. PW-3 is a neighbour of the appellant/accused and as against the claim of PW-12 that he used the phone of PW-4 to inform the death of his sister. PW-3 has stated that it was her phone which was used by PW-12. PW-3 has spoken to having been informed of the death by PW-4 another neighbour. PW-4 has spoken to accompanying the appellant/accused in taking the deceased to hospital.

John Vencent v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Dharmaraj Alias Vs the State Rep by

Saravanan Vs the Asst.Commissioner of

Ganapathy Subramaniam Vs the Reserve Bank of India

John Vencent v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Dharmaraj Alias Vs the State Rep by

Saravanan Vs the Asst.Commissioner of

Ganapathy Subramaniam Vs the Reserve Bank of India

A compact analysis

Sridhar Vs State by