Allowed

K.C.Mahendran v. State by

Madras HC3 Aug 2017CRL A/524/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and dismissed the revision for sentence enhancement. The court found critical infirmities in the prosecution case, including delayed FIR registration, unexamined witnesses, and contradictions regarding dowry demands, leading to the acquittal of all three accused persons.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of all accused set aside; acquittal of all accused; fine refunded; bail bonds cancelled.

K.C.Mahendran Vs State by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

Bail Slip.

¶2

The appellant/Accused namely 1.K.C.Mahendran aged about 34 years S/o.Chandramohan, 2.Chandramohan aged 61 years S/o.Sivasidhambaram, 3.Poongothai aged 56 years W/o.Chandramohan were directed to released on bail as per order dated 31.08.2010 in Crl.M.P. 1/2010 in Crl.A.No.524 of 2010 by this Hon'ble Court.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 03.08.2017

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
Crl.A.No.524 of 2010
and
Crl.R.C.No.1157 of 2010
Crl.A.No.524 of 2010
1.K.C.Mahendran
S/o.Chandramohan
2.Chandramohan
S/o.Sivasidhambaram
3.Poongothai
W/o.Chandramohan .. Appellants/Accused 1 to 3
vs.
State by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sriperumbudur Police Station.
Crime No.317 of 2004 .. Respondent/Complainant

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, passed in S.C.No.286 of 2007 on 24.08.2010.

¶8

For Appellants : Mr.N.Kumanan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.R.C.No.1157 of 2010

¶12

Kandasamy S/o.M.Kunjuraman .. Petitioner/De facto complainant

¶13

vs.

¶14

1.K.C.Mahendran S/o.Chandramohan

¶15

2.Chandramohan
S/o.Sivasidhambaram
3.Poongothai
W/o.Chandramohan ..Respondents 1 to 3/Accused 1 to 3
4.State of Tamil Nadu
represented by
Inspector of Police,
Sriperumbudur.
Crime No.317 of 2004 .. 4 th Respondent/Complainant

¶16

Criminal Revision filed u/s.397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, passed in S.C.No.286 of 2007 on 24.08.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondents: Mr.N.Kumanan, [R1 to R3] Mr.V.Arul Additional Public Prosecutor [R4] COMMON JUDGMENT / ORDER

¶17

Crl.A.No.524 of 2010 arises against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, passed in S.C.No.286 of 2007 on 24.08.2010, convicting appellants/accused for offences u/s.304-B and 498-A IPC and sentencing first accused to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 2 years R.I. and accused 2 and 3 to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 years R.I. for offence u/s.304-B IPC. As sentence was passed for offence u/s.304-B IPC, no separate sentence was passed for offence u/s.498-A IPC.

¶18

Crl.R.C.No.1157 of 2010 has been moved by petitioner/de facto complainant seeking enhancement of sentence.

¶19

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

¶20

Prosecution case is that appellants/accused are husband and in-laws of deceased. The accusation is that accused demanded dowry from the deceased as also cruelly treated her owing to which deceased committed suicide by self-immolation on 03.07.2004 at about 01.30 a.m.

¶21

A case was registered in Crime No.317 of 2004 on the file of respondent u/s.174 Cr.P.C. and later, the same was altered to reflect offences u/s.498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences u/s.498-A and 304-B IPC before learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Tiruvallur. On committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.286 of 2007 on the file of Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits. 1 witness was examined on behalf of defence and 11 exhibits were marked.

¶22

5.1. PW-1, father of deceased, spoke to his being informed by his daughter, the deceased over phone that accused were demanding that she get a house at Mayiladuthurai registered in her name threatening of burning her alive and required him to come and meet her immediately, which he agreed to do. PW-1 deposed that on his wife informing that his daughter was admitted in hospital with burn injuries, they immediately proceeded to hospital and saw the deceased admitted in Intensive Care Unit. PW-1 also deposed that on being informed by Doctors that the deceased died at 02.30 p.m., he preferred Ex.P1, complaint. PW-1 further deposed that he produced certain documents before police which have been marked as Exs.P2, P3 and P4.

¶23

5.2. PW-2, wife of PW-1, spoke to her being informed by her daughter/ deceased, that accused were demanding dowry, urging her to get the house at Mayiladuthari registered in her name and of third accused informing her that deceased has suffered burn injuries while lighting a gas stove and had been admitted in hospital. PW-2 also spoke to going along with P.W.1 to hospital where her daughter was declared dead at 02.30 p.m. and preference of complaint by PW-1.

¶24

5.3. PW-3, brother-in-law of PW-1, deposed that at the time of marriage, accused demanded dowry and 28 sovereigns of jewellery and cash of Rs.50,000/- towards purchase of vehicle had been given. PW-3 also spoke to taking the deceased from her matrimonial home to attend a sister's function and thereafter, leaving her in the matrimonial home.

¶25

5.4. PW-4, brother of PW-1, spoke to dowry demand made by accused and of having been informed of deceased's admission at hospital by PW-2.

¶26

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

¶27

5.5. PW-5, neighbour of PW-1, spoke to first accused being his wife's distant relative and that marriage deliberations had taken place in his house and of not attending the marriage owing to the death of his father.

¶28

5.6. PW-6, Doctor, who conducted post-mortem opined that deceased appeared to have died due to complications owing to burns. Post-mortem Certificate is Ex.P5.

¶29

5.7. PW-7, Assistant Director of Forensic Department, spoke to examination of Exs.P3 and P4, letters and notebook and of submitting Ex.P8, report.

¶30

5.8. PW-8, Assistant Professor of Ramachandra Hospital, spoke to treatment given to deceased and intimating her death to police station under Ex.P10.

¶31

5.9. PW-11, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur, spoke to registration of case in Crime No.317 of 2004 on the file of respondent u/s.174 Cr.P.C. and of forwarding Ex.P2, First Information Report, to Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, towards conduct of inquest since the deceased died within 8 months of marriage and of forwarding the same to higher officials.

¶32

5.10. PW-12, District collector, spoke to submitting Ex.P13,report, based on the inquest conducted by PW-11, Revenue Divisional Officer, since PW-11 had died. PW-12 also submitted his report – Ex.P12.

¶33

5.11. PW-13, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted investigation in the case, spoke to visiting the place of occurrence, preparation of mahazars, examination of witnesses, arrest of accused, seizure of material objects and of obtaining various reports. PW-10 also deposed that on completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet informing commission of offence u/s.498-A and 304-B IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate II, Thiruvallur.

¶34

On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 24.08.2010, rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced first accused to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d 2 years R.I. and accused 2 and 3 to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 2 years R.I. for offence u/s.304-B IPC. As sentence was passed for offence u/s.304-B IPC, no separate sentence was passed for offence u/s.498-A IPC. Against such finding, the present appeal has been filed.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

¶36

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

¶37

Prosecution case bristles with infirmities. To name a

¶38

few:

¶39

(i)The deceased, wife of A1 and daugther of P.Ws.1 and 2 allegedly doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze on the night of 02.07.2004 at 7.p.m. The FIR allegedly has been registered on P.W.1's complaint, Ex.P.1 on 03.07.2004. The same has reached the Magistrate on 18.07.2004 at 04.00 p.m. So has Ex.P.20, Accident Register copy of the deceased issued by Sri Ramachandra hospital, Porur, Chennai. P.W.8- Doctor, examined to speak to attending on the deceased on 02.07.2004 at 9.p.m has deposed that she was not on duty when the deceased was admitted into such hospital and that one Doctor Chenny was on duty in the emergency ward on such date. Doctor Chenny has not been examined. Doctor- P.W.8 has admitted to Police outpost at the hospital and auhtorities were upon duty to pass on information of cases of present nature to police there at. Ex.P.20 informs that the case has been informed to Police. The complaint Ex.P.1 admittedly has been registered on 03.07.2004 at 9 p.m . The enormous delay in the same reaching the Magistrate is unexplained and both suppression of the original information as also the FIR being the product of deliberation cannot be ruled out.

¶40

(ii) It is the Prosecution case that the deceased had called over phone to the office of P.W.1, her father asking for him on the date of occurence, of P.W.1 having been away at camp on such date and on P.W.1 having been informed thereof and of his speaking to the deceased, his daughter over phone from camp at Kuchanoor. In chief P.W.1 would state that his daughter the deceased had called the office of the Assistant Commissioner Madurai on 02.07.2004. In cross he has denied the suggestion that he had not informed of his having been at camp at Kuchanoor when his daughter called on 02.07.2004 either in the RDO enquiry or to the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he did not know when his daughter had called his office nor whom she had spoken to. He had claimed to have spoken to his daughter at 1.p.m from Kuchanoor. He has admitted to not informing of his having been out of office and of having contacted his daughter on his return, in the course of the enquiry. He has admitted that the Investigating Officer had not gathered any particulars regards the telephone calls exchanged between him and his daughter. P.W.2 mother of the deceased had stated that the deceased had communicated the demand for a house over phone on the date of occurrence and that she had told her daughter that she would inform P.W.1 there regards. In cross P.W.2 would state that the deceased spoke to her on 02.07.2004 by about 8.a.m. She had not been able to inform her husband since he was away at camp but she knew his office telephone number. P.W.13Investigating Officer had admitted to not gathering any particulars regards the telephone exchanges between the decased and P.W.1 and 2. In the aforesaid scenario, the prosecution

¶41

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

¶42

version of demand for a house having been communicated by the deceased to P.W.2 and of alleged telephone conversations between the deceased and P.W.1 and 2 on the date of occurrence are unbelievable.

¶43

(iii) P.W.13- Investigating Officer had admitted to not gathering material as would establish that P.W.1 had built a houlse on the property belonging to the Thiruvaduthurai athinam, which allegedly was demanded by the accused. P.W.13 has pleaded ignorance of the fact that property belonging to the Adinam could not be transfered by individuals and that P.W.1 did not dwell in a house owned by him. P.W.1 had admitted that he did not own any house and that the house where he resided belonged to the Thiruvadurai Athinam and could not be alienated. The defence has marked Ex.D.5 receipt dated 18.01.2007 issued by the Athinam which established that the place belonged to it. Therefore, the demand by the accused for transfer of title of a house by P.W.1, who was not the owner thereof, is an unlikely tale.

¶44

(iv) It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that when the deceased suffered delay of menstrual period the acused, under impression that she was pregnant required P.Ws.1 and 2 to take the deceased under there care towards aborting the foetus and that P.W.3, brother in law of P.W.2 had been sent for such purpose. It is their further case that P.W.3 took the deceased to Mayiladuthurai and on her being checked by Doctor Deepa Daniel she was found not pregnant and was then sent back to Sriperumbudur along with P.W.3. While P.W.3 makes no whisper on the issue, the said Doctor Deepa Daniel has not been examined. Quite contrarily the defence has marked Ex.D.7 in support of its contention that on suspecting pregnancy of his wife, the deceased, A1 had taken her for a check up at Jaya Hospital, Sriperumbudur and the pregnancy test was negative. The same has been deposed to by the first accused examined as D.W.1. While the imputation of cruelty on the above ground falls, the false implication by P.Ws.1 and 2 stands out.

¶45

(v) The defence has raised a ground of the inquest report being unreliable contending that the official who conducted inquest on 04.07.2004 had passed away and the RDO examined as P.W.12 had submitted inquest report in Ex.P.13 based merely on the statements recorded by her predecessor subbiah, since deceased. Statements recorded by the said Subbiah had allegedly been sent under covering note dated 21.08.2009 by one G.Kumar, RDO who has not been examined. The statements bear the initials of the Magistrate of date 18.07.2005. Defence through cross of P.W.12 has established that she had no acquaitance with deceased Subbiah, she having been a student when he had recored statements. While matters relating to Exs.P.12 and 13- Inquest report, leave much to be desired, what hammers the last nail into the coffin of the prosecution case is the writing of the deceased both by way of postal communications to her father P.W.1 and sister P.W.3 and on papers torn of a note book. A

¶46

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

¶47

perusal thereof informs of the accused having sought Aadi varisai and money towards purchase of clothes a traditionally customary gifting practice followed by the brides household and there absolutely is no mention of the demand for a house having been made. They also reveal that the deceased complained that her husband/A1, was most possessive. The common refrain running though the various communications/letters is the reference to the mother-in-law as kizhavi(old hag) and of her mother-in-law 'acting all too nice'. Most importantly and what has been missed through out is that under her own hand the deceased has stated thus:

¶48

' He (husband) has not understood me. Only you should make him understand my affection for him. Please take me. It is not that I don't like him. What I did the other day was very wrong. As punishment therefor please take me. I desire to be past Kirthika instead of lady terrorist;'

¶49

Lady terrorist being the term which she has informed in her earlier letters as being used against her.

¶50

It is not difficult to see that what eventually had led the deceased to suicide was some act of hers which she had been repentive or morbid about. In the result, (i)Crl.A.No.524 of 2010 shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, passed in S.C.No.286 of 2007 on 24.08.2010, shall stand set aside. Appellants are acquitted of all charges. Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled. (ii)Crl.R.C.No.1157 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VI) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gm To

¶51

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

¶52

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station.

¶53

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

¶54

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Inspector of Police Sriperumbudur Police Station Sriperumbudur.

¶55

The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶56

The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Chengalpattu(For information)
7. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
8. The Superintendent
Central Prison for Women
Puzhal, Chennai.
Crl.A.No.524 of 2010
and
Crl.R.C.No.1157 of 2010
SJ(CO)
SP(10/10/2018)

¶57

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

K.C.Mahendran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Mahendran v. State 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

P.Ragothaman Vs a.B.Govardhan

R.Sundarambal Vs T.C.Ramasamy

Balaji Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S.Rtc Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

Dr. S. Rajagopal, Age 52 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Sasikaladevi Vs Rajendiran