Partly allowed

Marimuthu v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC5 Mar 2020CRL A(MD)/207/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In matrimonial appeal regarding dowry and suicide, High Court confirmed conviction for cruelty but reduced sentences, setting aside conviction of in-laws under Section 304(B) while affirming conviction for Section 498A.

What did the court decide?

Appellants convicted under Section 498(A) sentenced to rigorous imprisonment; conviction of in-laws under Section 304(B) set aside; fine amounts confirmed.

Marimuthu Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶2

BAIL SLIP

¶3

Appellant/Accused No.1 namely Manikandan was released on Bail as per order of this court dated 07/10/2015 made in MP(MD) 1 of 2015 in CRL.A(MD) 259 of 2015.

¶4

Appellants/Accused No.2 and 3 namely(1) Marimuthu and (2) Saraswathi were released on bail as per order of this court dated 31.08.2015 made in MP(MD). No 1 of 2015 in CRL A(MD) No 207 of 2015

¶5

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2020 CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL.A.[MD]Nos.259 and 207 of 2015

¶7

1.Manikandan ...Appellant in Crl A(MD) No.259 of 2015

¶8

2.Marimuthu

¶9

3.Saraswathi ...Appellants in Crl A(MD)No 207 of 2015 Vs.

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

(In Crime No. 287/2013) ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow the appeal and acquit the appellants by setting aside the judgment dated 21.08.2015 in S.C.No.276 of 2015 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Thanjavur.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶15

The appellants herein, who are arrayed as the accused were charged and tried before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thanjavur, in S.C.No.276 of 2015, for the offences u/s

¶16

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

¶17

1/7

¶18

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶19

498(A) and 304(B) IPC. The trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2015, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

¶20

*Accused*	*Section*	*Sentence*
		Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	U/s 498	simple imprisonment for a period
	(A) IPC	of one [1] year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
A1		undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three [3] months.
		Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	U/s 304 (B)	rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten [10] years.
		Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	U/s 498	simple imprisonment for a period
	(A) IPC	of one [1] year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
A2		undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three [3] months.
	U/s 304	Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	(B)	rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven [7] years.
		Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	U/s 498	simple imprisonment for a period
	(A) IPC	of one [1] year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
A3		undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three [3] months.
	U/s 304	Convicted and sentenced to undergo
	(B)	rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven [7] years.

¶21

2.The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appellants, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court vide the impugned judgment referred supra, have filed the present appeals challenging its sustainability. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will be referred to as the accused 1 to 3.

¶22

3.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated as under :-

¶23

3.1.P.W.1's second daughter Nandhini's marriage was performed with A1 on 12.06.2013 at Pudukottai. At the time of marriage, P.W.1/de-facto complainant has given 10 sovereigns of gold and other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ household articles and prior to the marriage, A1 demanded Rs.1 Lakh

¶24

2/7

¶25

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶26

and motorcycle. After the marriage, there was no compatibility between the deceased and A1 and A1 forced the deceased person to pay Rs.10,000/- to her mother and the balance amount should be spent for his fuel expenses and when the same was questioned by the deceased, the accused 1 to 3 abused her.

¶27

3.2.On 20.06.2013, P.W.2 went to the house of the accused to see her daughter and up to 09:30, P.W.2 interacted with her daughter and thereafter, she took BP tablet and slept in the hall and the deceased went to her room. The next day morning she came to know that her daughter committed suicide. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the law enforcing agency, which was marked as Ex.P.1. On the basis of Ex.P-1, given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.287/13 was registered by preparing FIR, Ex.P-11, and the criminal machinery was set in motion by the law enforcing agency visiting the scene of occurrence and preparing the observation mahazar, Ex.P-3 and drawing the rough sketch, Ex.P-12 and the said incident was also informed to the Revenue Divisional Officer who was examined as P.W.13.

¶28

3.3.The accused were furnished with the relied upon documents u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, for trial after framing charges u/s 498(A) and 304(B) IPC. Thereafter, as per the directions of the High Court in Crl.O.P.[MD]No.1625 of 2015, the case was committed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Thanjavur and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.276 of 2015.

¶29

3.4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 17, marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. When the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was marked on the side of the defence. The trial court, after hearing either side and after considering the materials, both oral and documentary, on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as above, aggrieved by which the present appeals have been filed by the appellants.

¶30

4.Mr.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the marriage of A1 and the deceased was not disputed. In the present case, the marriage was performed in the presence of the elders on 12.06.2013 and from the date of marriage, there was no compatibility between the couple and hence, the deceased committed suicide. Though, P.W.1 made a complaint Ex.P.1, before the Law Enforcing Agency, however, the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are completely contrary to Ex.P.1 complaint. P.W.1 in his evidence as well as in Ex.P.1 has clearly stated that he and his wife went to the house of the accused and in their presence, the deceased Nandhini went to her room. However, P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that she alone went to the house of A1 in order to see her daughter and she consumed BP tablet and slept. Thereafter, when she

¶31

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

¶32

3/7

¶33

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶34

woke up in the morning and enquired about her daughter, the accused 2 and 3 informed that she has gone to the shop. Thereafter, when P.W.2 did not find her daughter in the shop and returned home, she found A1 and A2 lifting her daughter's body from her room. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborative with the evidence of P.W.1. The evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not support the complaint. Believing such case, the trial Court convicted the accused and the same is highly unsustainable.

¶35

5.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that initially after the death of the deceased person, P.W.1 made a complaint before the law enforcing agency. He is an illiterate person and hence, he orally informed the incident to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.14 and he has drawn the complaint. However, that minor contradiction will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. What is relevant is the evidence before the trial Court. P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the mother and other witnesses are sisters of the deceased person. The evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 is clearly corroborated. Even prior to the marriage A1 demanded Rs.1 Lakh as dowry and a motorcycle.

¶36

6.Further, P.W.1 in his evidence clearly deposed that demand of Rs.1 Lakh and motorcycle was informed to A2 and A3, for which they replied that they will console his son and thereafter, the marriage was performed at Pudukkottai. The said marriage was arranged by P.W.5 and P.W.6, who in their evidence clearly deposed with regard to demand of dowry amount. Hence, all the evidences namely P.Ws.1 to 4 including P.Ws.5 and 6 are corroborative with each other with regard to demand of dowry. Further, some of the words were written in the body of the deceased and in the middle of the chest a heart symbol was drawn. Further, A1 himself admitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer and his statement is recorded and the report is marked as Ex.P.10, in which he has categorically admitted that there is a dispute between them. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference.

¶37

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues arising for consideration are as follows:

¶38

i) Whether before suicide, there was cruelty?

¶39

ii) Whether the deceased committed suicide only due to the cruelty by the accused persons?

¶40

iii) Whether necessary ingredient required under Sections 498 (A) and 304(B) was established before the trial Court?

¶41

iv) Whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and 5 and 6 are corroborative with each other?

¶42

v) Whether the judgment of the trial Court calls for interference?

¶43

A cumulative reading of the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.6 clearly reveal that immediately after the marriage there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

4/7

¶45

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶46

was continuous dowry demand from the accused persons and P.W.2 went to the house of the accused to see her daughter and there was a quarrel between them. P.W.2 has clearly stated in her evidence that A2 and A3 informed P.W.2 that her daughter has went to purchase a shampoo in the nearby shop. When P.W.2 went to the shop she could not find her. When she returned home, she found A1 and A2 lifting the body of her deceased daughter. There is no proper explanation from the accused person with regard to the suicide committed by the deceased. The evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 and 5 and 6 are clearly corroborative with each other. Further, no evidence was adduced to disprove the prosecution case.

¶47

Since all the issues are inter related one, accordingly the issues are answered commonly. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the relatives of the deceased, (i.e.) father and mother of the deceased and P.W.5 and P.W.6 are independent witnesses, who attended the marriage of the deceased with the accused, in the evidence they have clearly deposed with regard to the demand of dowry made by the accused and his family members to the deceased's family that comprised of 10 sovereigns of gold jewels, a motor cycle and Rs.10,000/- from the deceased monthly salary as dowry. Even in the cross examination, the accused did not elicit any favourable evidence to disprove the case of the prosecution. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the demand of dowry by the accused person A1 and his family members, A2 and A3 was well established. However, A2 and A3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in law of the deceased, who were available at the scene of occurrence, made false statements when P.W.2, mother of the deceased, enquired about her daughter on the date of committal of suicide. When P.W.2 enquired about her daughter to A2 and A3, they made false statement that the daughter of P.W.2 had gone to the shop. The fact remains that the deceased committed suicide in the house and except this evidence, no other evidence is available with regard to the cruelty suffered by the deceased at the hands of A2 and A3 prior to the death of the deceased. However, in respect of A1, it is relevant to mention the evidence of post mortem doctor, who was examined as P.W.10 and in the post mortem report, the following statements were made by P.W.10:

¶48

“ ,we;Jnghd bgz;zpd; clypy; ghy;ghapz;l; ngdhthy; rpy thh;j;ijfs; vGjg;gl;oUe;jJ. mij ehd; gpnuj ghpnrhjidbra;jnghJ ghh;j;njd;. mij vdJ gpnuj ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifapy; ug;ghf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;. tyJgf;f bjhilapy; brf;rp nyo ee;jpdp vd;W Cjh fyh; ghy; ngdhthy; vGjg;gl;oUe;jJ. 2 khh;gfj;jpd; ,ilapy; , ja glk; tiue;J mjpy; xU Mnuhkhh;f nghlg;gl;oUe;jJ. mij ehd; gpnuj ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifapy; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy. ehd; ngg;ghpy; mij bgd;rpyhy; Fwpj;Js;nsd;. mJ vq;fs; mYtyf ug; fhg;gp. me;j ug; fhg;gp ,J jhd;. mJ m.rh.M.8. vjphpfs; jug;gpy; nkw;go Mtzk; FwpapLtjw;F Ml;nrgiz bra;ag;gl;lJ. Mdhy; nkw;go

¶49

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

¶50

5/7

¶51

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶52

Mtzj;ij vGjpath; ,nj kUj;Jth; vd;gjhy; Ml;nrgida[ld; nkw;go Mtzk; Fwpaplg;gLfpwJ. ” ”

¶53

In the cross examination of P.W.10, he has clearly deposed the following:

¶54

“gpnuj ghpnrhjidapd; nghJ ghh;j;ijitfis bgd;rpypy; m.j.rh.M.8-y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;. m.j.rh.M.8-y; bgd;rpyhy; vGjg;gl;Ls;sjhy; mij mHpg;ghdhy; mHpj;Jtpl;L mHpj;jJ bjhpahj mstpw;F njitahdtw;iw vGjpf; bfhs;s tha;g;g[s;sjh vd;why; tha;g;g[z;L. nkw;go gpnujj;jpd; tyJgf;f bjhilapy; brf;]p nyo ee;jpdp vd;W Cjhf; fyh; ghy;ghapz;l; ngdhthy; vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W m.j.rh.M.8 Md bgd;rpyhy; vGjg;gl;l ngh];l; khh;lk;; vf;rhkpnd\d; Fwpg;gpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;. Mdhy; me;j tpguj;ij m.j.rh.M.5 Md gpnuj ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifapy; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. mnjnghy; ,uz;L khh;gfj;jpd; ,ilapy; ,ja glk; tiue;J mjpy; xU Mnuhkhh;f nghlg;gl;oUe;jJ vd;W bgd;rpyhy; vGjg;gl;l ngh];l; khh;lk; vf;rhkpnd\d; Fwpg;gpy;brhy;ypa[s;nsd;. m.j.rh.M.5 Md gpnuj ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifapy; mij Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhuiz bra;jnghJ nkw;fz;lthW tyJ gf;f njhilapy; brf;]p nyo ee;jpdp vd;W Cjhf; fyh; ghy;ghapz;l; ngdhthy; vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;> ,uz;L khh;gfj;jpd; ,ilapy; ,jak; glk; tiue;J mjpy; xU Mnuh khh;f; nghlg;gl;oUe;jJ vd;Wk; ,J rk;ke;jkhf mth;fs; nfl;fhjjhy; ” ehd; brhy;ytpy;iy.

¶55

However, on a perusal of the entire records, A2 and A3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and no evidence whatsoever has been established to convict A2 and A3 under Section 304(B). However, there are lot of materials to convict them under Section 498(A) of IPC. With regard to A1, continuous harassment has been clearly established. The words found in the body of the deceased proves that she has been subjected to continuous cruelty and the same was confirmed by P.W.10 in his postmortem report. No prudent women will accept this type of harassment of writing such words in her body, which shows his perversion.

¶56

Hence, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that prior to the death of the deceased, there was cruelty and the deceased was harassed by the accused.Hence,looking at from any angle, I do not find any reasons to acquit the accused. The questions arising for consideration are answered accordingly.

¶57

For the reasons aforesaid, these criminal appeals are dismissed. The conviction imposed on A1 u/s 304(B) and 498(A) and the conviction imposed on A2 and A3 u/s 498(A) IPC are confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court is modified and A1 is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven [7] years for the offence under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

6/7

¶59

Crl.A.[MD]Nos.207 & 259 of 2015

¶60

Section 304(B) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [1] year for the offence under Section 498(A) and A2 and A3 are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [1] year for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. Fine amount imposed by the trial court stands confirmed. However, the conviction and sentence imposed on A2 and A3 u/s. 304(B) IPC is set aside. It is reported that the accused are on bail. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused 1 to 3 and commit them to prison to serve the balance portion of the sentence as imposed by this Court above.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶63

// True Copy //

¶64

/ /2020

¶65

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶66

MR To

¶67

1.The District and Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Thanjavur.

¶68

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

¶69

3.-Do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

¶70

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶71

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

¶72

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶73

7.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 copies)

¶74

+2 CC to M/s.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-10501&10502[F] dated 06/03/2020 )

¶75

CRL.A.[MD]Nos.259 and 207 of 2015 05.03.2020

¶76

KB(07.07.2020) 7P 11C

¶77

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

¶78

7/7

Marimuthu v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marimuthu 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

Balasubramani Vs the Inspector of Police

Gnanamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

L. Jayakumar, M/70 Vs Grance Vinitha

M. Nagarajan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

B.Soorya Prabha Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S.Kumar Vs K.Ananda Subbiah