Dismissed¶81

The Public Prosecutor v. M.Suresh

Madras HC14 Nov 2025CRL A/622/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Crl.A.No.622 of 2018; State appeal against acquittal; Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC; abetment of suicide; cruelty to wife; hanging death 05.08.2011; Thirupapuliyur Police Station Crime No.576 of 2011; S.C.No.10 of 2012; benefit of doubt; contradictions in witness evidence; medical evidence postmortem; Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Till the death of Meera there was no complaint of harassment, beating or illicit relationship; the allegations were made by PW1 only after his daughter's death, and no mobile phone was seized nor Call Data Records collected despite the claimed telephonic complaints. ¶67

The Public Prosecutor Vs M.Suresh — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's acquittal of the respondents (A1 and A2) of the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC should be set aside, i.e., whether the prosecution proved cruelty and abetment of the suicide of Meera beyond reasonable doubt. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶67

Ratio / Principle

The allegation that the first respondent had an illicit relationship with the second respondent's wife is without any materials.

¶67

Key takeaways

PW1 and PW2 had been consistently making allegations that a murder was committed, but the medical evidence and other evidence are otherwise.ratio¶80
The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the medical prescription annexed confirm the deceased was under severe headache and stomach pain with unbearable pain, which might be a reason for her taking the extreme step.ratio¶80
These facts were clearly analysed by the Trial Court in a well reasoned judgment; hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State appeal under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of A1 and A2 (husband and his brother) in S.C.No.10 of 2012 (District Mahalir Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, 10.02.2016) of offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC arising from the hanging death of A1's wife Meera on 05.08.2011. The case, initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Crime No.576 of 2011), was altered to Sections 498A/306 IPC by Ex.P8. The deceased's father (PW1) and brother (PW2) alleged murder, cruelty and an illicit relationship; however, relatives and neighbours did not corroborate any cruelty, no mobile phone or call data records were collected, and a series of petitions (transfer to CBCID, Section 173(8), Section 311, Crl.R.C.No.967 of 2012, Crl.O.P.No.24439 of 2015) were dismissed. Held: the allegations lacked materials, the medical and other evidence contradicted the murder theory, and the deceased's severe headache and stomach pain might be a reason for the extreme step; the Trial Court's judgment was well reasoned. The Criminal Appeal was dismissed and the acquittal stands.

¶1

Crl.A.No.622 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.A.No.622 of 2018

¶7

State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. (Thirupapuliyur Police Station Crime No.576 of 2011) ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.M.Suresh 2.M.Sohanlal ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A2 in S.C.No.10 of 2012 dated 10.02.2016 on the file of the learned District Mahalir Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District and convict the respondents/A1 and A2 for the offences committed by them under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Ms.Harshana.T For Respondents : Mr.C.Kumar Talreja for Mr.P.Veeranarayanan

¶12

Page No.1 of 18

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.S. Bharathi, 38 Yrs, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Police

M/S.Jai Sakthi Builders Vs R.Ravichandran

G.Mathivanan Vs The Inspector of Police

F.N.Durai Vs The Superintendent of Police

M/S.Nex Tech Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs v.Sree Kumar

B.U.Muthusami Vs D.Kiruthika