Allowed

R.Ramasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC1 Aug 2017CRL A/90/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants. The court held that the chemical analysis proved no poison was consumed, negating the offence under Section 304B IPC. Thus, only Section 498A IPC remained, which the court also found not justified based on the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem on 20.01.2010 are set aside. Appellants/Accused are acquitted of all charges.

R.Ramasamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 01.08.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam
Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2010
1. R. Ramasamy @ Ravi
2. Mrs. Santha
3. Mr. Gopi
4. Mr. Velu
5. Mrs. Jothi
...Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Salem Rural,
Salem (District),
Kondalampatty Police Station.
...Respondent

¶6

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment and order to conviction dated 20.01.2010 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in S.C.No.72/2007, convicting the Appellants for the alleged offences under Sections 498A & 304B IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in addition to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for 498A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 304B.

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

For Appellants : Mr. K. V. Shanmuganathan For Respondent : Mr. V. Arul, Additional Public Prosecutor __*

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

This Criminal Appeal arises against the judgment of conviction

¶12

dated 20.01.2010 in S.C.No.72/2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,

¶13

Mahila Court, Salem.

¶14

The case of prosecution is that P.W.4 Anthony is residing at Mettur. P.W.3 Nallammal is the wife of P.W.4. They have 2 sons and 2 daughters. The deceased Ruby was their last daughter. P.W.1 Thiru.Irudhayaraj and P.W.5 Pappu were the elder brother and elder sister of the deceased. P.W.6 Thiru Shanmugam is their neighbor. The first accused Ramasamy @ Ravi was the husband and the second accused Shantha was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Third accused Gopi and fourth accused Velu were the brothers-in-law of the deceased. Fifth accused Jothi was her Aunt.

¶15

Exactly one year before the date of death, the deceased Ruby and the first accused got married. At the time of the marriage, accused asked for 5 sovereigns of gold jewels. P.W.3 and P.W.4 gave only 3-1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels to the accused. After the marriage, the couple lived happily for 2

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

months. They came to the house of P.W.3 for Aadi Festival. They asked for the remaining 1-1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels. P.W.3 and P.W.4 said that they were then not able to comply with the demand and would do so later. A2 to A4 asked the deceased why she came to their house without jewels and scolded her for not bringing the same. The accused also demanded a Bureau, Bed, Cot and other articles from Pws-3 & 4 for setting up a separate family. They also told the deceased that until she brought them, she should not sit on the cot and should not switch on the fan. Informing that the remaining jewels would be given after a week, PWs-3 & 4, parents of deceased pacified her and sent her to the matrimonial home. On 03.04.2005, the deceased Ruby unable to bear cruelty and harassment consumed poison. The accused made a phone call to P.W.3 and informed that her daughter was sick. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 went

¶19

to Salem Vinayaga Mission Hospital to see the deceased. The deceased was unconscious. They were also told that the deceased had consumed poisonous

¶20

leaves. On the next day i.e., 04.04.2005, the deceased died.

¶21

On 04.04.2005, P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police was at

¶22

Kondalampatty Police Station, when at around 07:00 a.m., P.W.3 Nallammal

¶23

went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. He registered a case in Crime No.104/2005 for offences u/s. 498A and 309 IPC. The First Information Report (FIR) is Ex.P.5. Copies of FIR were forwarded to the Higher Officials.

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

P.W.12 Deputy Superintendent of Police at Salem Rural took up investigation.

¶27

He went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.2. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5, 8 and 3 others and recorded their statements. On the same day, at around 08:30 pm., he arrested A1 to A3 and A5 and sent them to court for remand. A4 had obtained anticipatory bail. On 19.07.2005, he examined others and recorded their statements. P.W.7, sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Salem with a requisition for post-mortem. On 04.04.2005, at around 05:30 p.m., PW-11, Director at Institute of Forensic Medicine, M.M.C., Chennai, received the requisition and along with Dr.S.S.Meera conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ruby. The requisition, Post-mortem certificate and Chemical Examination report are marked as Ex.Ps.6, 7 & 8 respectively.

¶28

The Post-mortem Certificate of the deceased Ruby reads as follows:-

¶29

"POST-MORTEM CERTIFICATE

¶30

Regarding the body of a female aged about 21 years, named Ruby. Requisition received at 05:10 pm., on 04.04.2005 from the RDO & SDEM, Salem of Kondalampatty Ps. with his Cr.No.104/05 dated 04.04.2005. Body in charge of Police Head Constable No.1508 named Mr. K. Krishnan.

¶31

Identification and caste marks --

¶32

(1) ABM below the left chest.

¶33

(2) AWS on the left knee.

¶34

(3)

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

The body was first seen by the undersigned at 05:15 p.m., on 04.04.2005. Its condition then was RM present all over the body. Post-mortem commenced at 05:15 p.m., on 04.04.2005. Appearances found at the post-mortem Moderately nourished body of a female.

¶38

INJURIES: No anti-mortem injury seen anywhere in the body. EXTREMITIES: Finger nail beds found bluish.

¶39

HEART: Chambers and Valves normal. Cavities contained fluid blood.

¶40

CORONORY VESSELS: Patent GREAT VESSELS: Normal LUNGS: Both on c/s congested. HYOID BONE: Intact

¶41

STOMACH: Contained 50 ml of greyish brown coloured fluid with vegetable odour. Mucosa - congested.

¶42

SMALL INTESTINE: Greyish brown enzyme with vegitable odour.

¶43

Mucosa - congested.

¶44

LIVER, SPLEEN, KIDNEYS: All are c/s congested.

¶45

BLADDER: Empty.

¶46

UTERUS: Normal in size, Genetalia, normal hymen - no fresh injuries.

¶47

PELVIS, MEMBRANES, SPINAL COLUMN: All are intact.

¶48

BRAIN: c/s congested.

¶49

OPINION: Reserved Pending Chemical Analysis Report.

¶50

SALEM

¶51

04.04.2005 "

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

¶54

After Post-mortem, body of the deceased was handed over to the

¶55

relations of the deceased. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet against the accused for offences u/s 498A IPC and 304B IPC.

¶56

Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses

¶57

and marked 9 exhibits and no material objects were marked. On the defence

¶58

side, 2 witnesses were marked and no exhibits were marked.

¶59

On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 20.01.2010, convicted the appellants/accused. It sentenced

¶60

them to 3 years R.I and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 3 months R.I. u/s 498A IPC and 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 3 months R.I for offence under Section 304B

¶61

IPC. There against, this appeal has been filed.

¶62

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent.

¶63

The prosecution case is that of deceased having committed

¶64

suicide by consuming poisonous substance owing to demand of dowry by the appellant/accused and of harassment and acts of cruelty on their part. The

¶65

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶66

¶67

very fact of the deceased having consumed poison has not been proved inasmuch as the chemical analysis report marked as Ex.P8 informs that the vicera of the deceased did not contain any poison, whatsoever. Section 304-B IPC would stand attracted where the death of a woman caused by any burns or injuries, which is not the case here or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the instant case, the very first requirement of death having been occasioned otherwise than under normal circumstances has not been met. This Court is left with the charge of commission of cruelty punishable under Section 498A IPC. It is the admission of PW-1 Brother of the deceased, PW-3/ defacto complainant, Mother

¶68

of the deceased as also PW-4, her father, that the deceased had not been taken to the paternal home during the period of her pregnancy (her first one)

¶69

nor had any “Seemantham” function (Baby Shower) been held for her. Prosecution witnesses admit that no earlier complaint of any wrong doing on the part of accused had been preferred. They also admit to the death of a girl child born to the deceased, immediately after the mother and child were taken

¶70

to the parental home. It is the defence case that the prosecution party had committed infanticide and differences arose owing thereto. The prosecution party admits to not having informed the Investigating Officer of the death of

¶71

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶72

¶73

the new born and there absolutely has been no investigation on such aspect of the matter. Be that as it may, it is the admission of PWs-1, 3 and 4 the family members of the deceased that they were called to a function at the deceased's house, which they did not attend. Ex.P4 Inquest report of PW-7-RDO informs

¶74

that while three panchayatars informed the case to be one of dowry harassment, two others informed that the deceased resorted to suicide being heart broken over her family members not having attended the function which they were invited to. In the attendant facts and circumstances, the finding of

¶75

commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not justified.

¶76

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction

¶77

and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C.No.72/2007 dated 20.01.2010 is set aside. Appellants/Accused are acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to them.

¶78

Bail bond(s), if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled.

¶79

01.08.2017

¶80

Index : Yes/ No

¶81

Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

¶82

mrr/kmi

¶83

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶84

¶85

¶86

The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

¶87

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.

¶88

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.T. Selvam, J.,

mrr/kmi

Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2010
01.08.2017

¶93

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Ramasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

Suba Ilavavarasan Vs State Rep by

L.v.Shanmugam Vs Anitha .a.Shah

R.Dakshinamoorthy Vs Sri Lakshmi Traders

Arumugam Vs Station House Officer

Gowri Vs a.Kathirvel

M/S.Lakshmi Apparels Vs L.Selvaraj