The High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal in a dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abetted the victim's suicide or subjected her to dowry harassment, due to material contradictions in evidence.
The criminal appeal is dismissed and the order of acquittal dated 30.01.2014 is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order 12.07.2021 04.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.A.No.209 of 2015
The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. (Erode South Police Station) Crime No.393/2012
...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.Abdul Azeez 2.Sowkath Ali 3.Fairoj Begum
4.Fathima Beebi
...Respondents/Accused 1 to 4
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused (A1 to A4) passed in Sessions Case No.103/2013, dated 30.01.2014 by the Mahalir Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Erode and convict the respondents/accused (A1 to A4) for the charges framed against them.
For Respondents : Mr.P.Palani Nathan
The matter is heard through "Video Conference".
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order of acquittal of the respondents/A1 to A4, passed in S.C.No.103 of 2013, by Mahilar Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Fast Track Court, Erode. The Inspector of Police Erode South Police Station, after investigation in Crime No.393 of 2012 had filed the charge sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate and taken on file as S.C.No.103 of 2013.
3(a) the marriage between the deceased and the accused(A1) was performed on 16.11.2011 and on that occasion, as demanded by the accused (A2 & A3), 50 sovereign of gold jewels, out of the marriage expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and other seers of bureau, refrigerator, mixie and washing machine were given as dowry and the parents of the deceased agreed to pay the balance of Rs.1,00,000/- and a cot within, four months. Since, they did not pay as agreed after four months, the accused (A1) took the deceased (his wife) to her parent house and left her on 10.04.2012.
3(b) Then, on 14.04.2012, Balkees Bibi (mother of the deceased) and her sister's son Hakkim brought back the deceased to her husband's house (matrimonial home) and on seeing them, the accused persons abused them as they have not fulfilled the demand of dowry and also scolded the deceased as “mGjhy; cd;ida [k; Juj;jp thHh btl;oahf;fp tpLnthk;” and the accused have also snatched the sim card from the deceased in order to prevent her to speak with her parents and family members and subjected her severe mental agony and tortured her and of the above acts of the accused persons, the deceased was forced to commit suicide, as she was unable to bear their torture and had no other option and in pursuance of the acts of all the accused persons, the deceased on 29.04.2012 at 1.00 pm, committed suicide in the house of accused(A2) by hanging herself in the ceiling fan with her saree.
and the first respondent accused is on 16.11.2011 and she committed suicide by hanging at the accused house [matrimonial house) on 29.04.2012 within five months of the marriage she has died in an unnatural death in the matrimonial home, wherein all the four accused were residing. While the accused 2 is father in law of the deceased; accused 3 is the mother in law of the accused; accused 4 is the grand mother of the first accused (husband of the deceased).
2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) 310 (M. Sathishkumar Vs. State by the Inspector of Police)
"Sections 306 & 307 - Suicide - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients - Unless established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that there was either direct or indirect act of inducement to commission of suicide, mere fact that husband treated deceased-wife with cruelty not enough to convict accused under Section 306."
2010 (1) Acquittal 389 (Madhukar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)
"For abetment instigation to do a particular thing must be there - None of the witnesses stated if deceased was abetted by appellant to commit suicide - Deceased might have taken extreme step under the influence of mental imbalance - Conviction could not be sustained."
2010-2 L.W. (Crl.) 764 (Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal)
"Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
"There is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased - Court finds no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court and the High Court as far as Section 498A IPC is concerned - Appeal allowed in part."
18. It remains to be stated that neither with the revenue witness nor investigation officer, such statement of demand of dowry, partial fulfillment of the said dowry and balance payment of alleged dowry within, four months and further statement of harassing the deceased with the unparliamentary words and cruelty are not deposed.
19. In view of the material contradictions with regard to the alleged demand of dowry and also alleged abetment of suicide, the learned Special Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Erode has taken note of the material contradiction in the proper prospective and also laid that there is no abetment of suicide nor demand of dowry, as prescribed, in the IPC and accordingly, the finding rendered by the learned Special Sessions Judge, that the prosecution having failed to prove the charge under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC and hence, the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. By operation of law, the accused are entitled for acquittal and such a finding does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference at the appellate stage. In this view of the matter, in the absence of any positive evidence to interfere with such a finding, this Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the order of acquittal dated 30.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode in S.C.No.103/2013 is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AT
To
+1cc to Mr.P.Palani Nathan, Advocate, S.R.No.52079
Crl.A.No.209 of 2015
AK-II[co]
NSK 28/10/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether material contradictions in witness statements regarding dowry demand and harassment warrant acquittal of the accused?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The State represented by The Public Prosecutor
Abdul Azeez
Sowkath Ali
Fairoj Begum
Fathima Beebi
RMT TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
