Allowed

Abraham, M/37 Yrs, A1 v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Dec 2024CRL A/835/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for a wife's suicide based on her suicide notes alleging the husband's illicit relationship with A2. The High Court held such a relationship does not constitute cruelty under 498A and the notes were inadequate for abetment, acquitted both appellants and set aside the trial court's judgment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abraham, M/37 Yrs, A1 Vs the State Rep. by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶6

1.Abraham ... Appellant in Crl.A.835/2016 /A1 2.Princy Beaula ... Appellant in Crl.A.837/2016 /A2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Chennai.

¶9

... Respondent in both Crl.Appeals

¶10

Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to allow the above appeals and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.222 of 2008 dated 30.11.2016.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram in Crl.A.835/2016 for Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

¶12

For Appellant : Ms.Lakshmi in Crl.A.837/2016 for Mr.R.Balaji Singh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Assisted by Ms.J.R.Archana

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________ Page 1/6_

¶15

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶16

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶17

These appeals are directed against the conviction of the appellants for offences U/s.498A I.P.C against A1, and U/s.306 I.P.C. as against A1 and A2 and also the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court in S.C.No.222 of 2008, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. The details

¶18

are as below :

¶19

*Accused*	*Chargesframed*	*Sentence imposed*
		3 years R.I. along with a fine of
A1	U/s.498A & 306 I.P.C	Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.
		3 years R.I. along with a fine of
A1 & A2	U/s.306 I.P.C.	Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 4 months R.I.

¶20

The case of the prosecution runs as below :

¶21

a) A certain Viji Hendry Lawanya, aged only 25 years as on 01.08.2007,

¶22

committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial house, barely a year after her marriage.

¶23

b) It was at 4.30 p.m. in the evening Viji Hendry Lawanya was found

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

_________ Page 2/6_

¶26

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶27

hanging in her house. So the Investigating Agency was informed and they registered a case in Crime No.2086 of 2007, U/s.174(3) Cr.P.C. Later it was altered to Section 306 I.P.C. In the course of the investigation, the investigator has seized three suicide notes, Exts.P14 to P16 all written by the deceased Lawanya in her hand, of which Ext.P14 and Ext.P16 were dateless and Ext.P15 was dated 01.08.2007, the very date on which she committed suicide. In terms of the suicide notes, both dated and undated, Viji Hendry Lawanya firmly believed that her husband, the 1^st accused in this case had an illicit relationship with her cousin A2.

¶28

c) Since Viji Hendry Lawanya had committed suicide within about two years from the date of her marriage, P.W.8, RDO conducted an inquest and came out with his Ext.P9, Report. The report does not indicate any demand for dowry

¶29

d) After completing his investigation P.W.11 laid the final report and the investigator believed that in his assessment of the materials gathered during investigation , the appellants herein have committed a crime U/s.306 I.P.C. The basis therefore was Lawanya's strong suspicion or belief about her husband's relationship with A2.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

_________ Page 3/6_

¶32

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶33

While framing charges, the trial Court deemed it appropriate to frame charges under U/s.498A I.P.C along with Section 306 I.P.C, and proceeded to try the accused persons. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 on its side, and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P17 besides it also marked M.O.1. After appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused persons are guilty of the offences of which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them as outlined in the opening paragraph. This judgment is now under challenge.

¶34

Heard both sides. The only evidence which the prosecution has been able to provide the Court are Ext.P14 to Ext.P16, all of which are the suicide notes of Lawanya. And as earlier stated, these documents only speak about certain perceived relationship which her husband A1 was believed to have had with A2. The truth of the perception apart, even if the victim's assessment about her husband's conduct is presumed to be true, yet the husband having a relationship with another women cannot constitute cruelty under Sec.498A IPC. It may be that such extra-marital relationship may amount to mental agony in a

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

_________ Page 4/6_

¶37

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶38

proceedings for dissolution of marriage, yet it is far too inadequate to hold that the husband has treated his wife with cruelty under Sec.498A IPC. So far as the charge of abetment to suicide is concerned, it is a positive act, and Exts.P14 to P16 are far too inadequate to convict the appellants.

¶39

It appears Lawanya has been far too sensitive to what she believed vis-a-vis her husband's relationship with A2. The materials made available by the prosecution are far too inadequate to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of charges.

¶40

To conclude, both the appeals are allowed and judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.222 of 2008 dated 30.11.2016, convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and the bail bond if any executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.

¶41

20.12.2024

¶42

kas/ds Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

_________ Page 5/6_

¶45

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

To:

1.The Inspector of Police

¶50

R6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Chennai.

¶51

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶52

Crl.A.Nos.835 & 837 of 2016

¶53

20.12.2024

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

_________ Page 6/6_

Abraham, M/37 Yrs, A1 v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abraham, M/37 Yrs, A1 v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.V. Madhavan (Died) Vs R.Saravanan (Deceased)

Vigneshwaran Vs the Director

K.Sema Kumar Vs the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Mr. Muthuswamy Vs the District Collector

D.Jayakumar Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Mohamed Ali Vs the Intelligence Officer