Selvaraj vs Inspector of Police, Kavarapettai Police Station

R. Mala, J—This Criminal appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2004 in S.C. No.97 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ponneri, Thiruvallore District, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O.1 to M.O.17 were marked.

(ii) P.W.2/Nirmala is the mother of deceased Kowsalya and mother-in-law of accused. P.W.1/Sambandham is brother of P.W.2. On 23.09.1999, marriage was performed between the deceased Kowsalya and accused. During marriage, 10 sovereign jewels, Rs.20,000/- and sridhana worth about Rs.30,000/- were given to the accused. After marriage only, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to know that the accused is having the habits of alcohol and gambling. After marriage, both the accused and Kowsalya were living happily for one year. Thereafter, the accused demanded money, for which, he often sent Kowsalya to her parental home. On 07.04.2001, the accused went to the house of P.W.2 and demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for buying motor cycle. At that time, P.W.2 said that she is not having amount and after getting chit amount within two weeks, she would give the amount. On 11.04.2001, P.W.1 came to know that since Kowsalya refused to give money to her husband/accused for consuming alcohol, the accused snatched her thali and after taking 1/4 sovereign gold coin, he threw away the thali and then, he hanged Kowsalya and ran away from his house. On 11.04.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was in his house, people belonging to the native place of accused came there and intimated that Kowsalya committed suicide by hanging. Since there is no bus facility during night hours, P.W.1 went to the house of Kowsalya on 12.04.2001 at about 4.00 a.m. After seeing the body of deceased Kowsalya, P.W.1 went to Kavarapettai police station and lodged a complaint Ex.P1.

(iii) P.W.9/Thirunavukkarasu, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavarapettai Police Station in Kavarapettai police station, received Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 172 of 2001 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. and prepared Ex.P6 First Information Report. Then he sent Ex.P6/FIR to P.W.8/R.D.O. and copy of F.I.R. to Superintendent of Police, Ponneri.

(iv) On 12.04.2001, P.W.10/Soundararajan, Superintendent of Police, Ponneri, received Ex.P6/F.I.R. at 1.00 p.m. and went to the place of occurrence at 1.45 p.m. and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses namely, P.W.6/Nathan and one Mari and drew rough sketch Ex.P7. At 3.00 p.m., P.W.10 seized M.O.1/gold thali, M.O.2/thali pottu, M.O.3 series/gold nanal tubes five in numbers, M.O.4 series/gold balls three in numbers, M.O.5/brass tube one in number, M.O.12/broken glass pieces, M.O.13/broken bangle pieces, M.O.14/green colour nylon rope, M.O.15/green colour nylon rope which was tied in the middle and M.O.16/yellow colour thali under Ex.P3 seizure mahazar. P.W.10 took steps to take photographs on the body of deceased Kowsalya through one Moorthy/Photographer and seized M.O.17 series/photographs and negatives three in numbers. Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

(v) On 12.04.2001, P.W.8/Revenue Divisional Officer went to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest in the presence of the Panchayatars and relatives of deceased Kowsalya and recorded their statements. Then he sent requisition to the Government Hospital, Ponneri for conducting post-mortem. He gave Ex.P5/inquest report stating that the death of Kowsalya is not due to dowry demand.

(vi) On 13.04.2001, P.W.10 sent the body of deceased Kowsalya for conducting post-mortem through Mohan/Police. Then he seized M.O.6/yellow thread with manjal (turmeric), M.O.7/kunguma colour saree, M.O.8/teared sandal colour blouse, M.O.9/sandal colour bra, M.O.10/sandal colour skirt and M.O.11/teared green colour inskirt through Form No. 95 Ex.P8.

(vii) On 13.04.2001, at about 1.10 p.m., P.W.7/Dr.Gopinath, Ponneri Government Hospital, conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Kowsalya and gave Ex.P4/Post-mortem certificate and opined that the death of Kowsalya is due to asphyxia by hanging.

(viii) On 29.05.2001, P.W.10 altered the Section from 174(3) Cr.P.C. to Sections 306 and 498A IPC and sent Ex.P9 alteration report to the Judicial magistrate. At 3.00 p.m., he arrested the accused in Thachur cross-cut road and sent him to judicial custody.

(ix) On 27.08.2001, P.W.10 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 02.09.2001, after completing investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC.

The Trial Court placed the incriminating evidence before the accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same in toto. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were let in. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused raised the following points:

(i) The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are giving contradictory version in respect of demanding amount by the accused soon before death of Kowsalya. So the offence under Section 304(B) IPC is not made out.

(ii) The trial Court convicted the appellant/accused not only for offence under Section 304(B) IPC and he was also convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC. The ingredients of Sections 304B and 306 IPC are entirely different, but the trial Court without considering the same, has wrongly convicted the accused for both the offences under Sections 304B and 306 IPC.

(iii) The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not supported the case of prosecution for demand of dowry.

(iv) P.W.8/R.D.O. gave Ex.P5 inquest report, in which, it was stated that death of Kowsalya is not due to dowry demand. The appellant neither made her cruelty nor abated her for commission of suicide.

The trial Court without considering the above aspects erroneously convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

Resisting the same, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that it is true, no person can be convicted for both the offences under Sections 304(B) and 306 IPC. However, ingredients of Section 306 IPC are made out by examining P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are neighbours of deceased Kowsalya. According to their evidence, Kowsalya was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the accused. So the offence under Section 498A IPC has also been made out and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the trial Court considering all the aspects in proper perspective, rightly convicted the appellant/accused and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

The marriage between the appellant/accused and deceased Kowsalya was performed on 23.09.1999. The alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 11.04.2001. The said Kowsalya committed suicide by hanging. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the maternal uncle and mother of the deceased Kowsalya respectively. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the appellant/accused demanded Rs.20,000/- from P.W.2 for buying motorcycle soon before the death of Kowsalya. Whereas P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that the accused demanded Rs.4,000/- to put up a flower garden. So there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of demand of dowry. Even though the appellant/accused was convicted for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) fairly conceded that ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC have not been made out, hence the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 304(B) IPC, even though the death of Kowsalya is within seven years from the date of her marriage.

As per the evidence of P.W.7/Dr.Gopinath, he conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Kowsalya and gave Ex.P4 postmortem certificate, opined that her death is due to asphyxia by hanging and it is unnatural. Furthermore, as per Ex.P5/inquest report, the death of Kowsalya is not due to demand of dowry. Even though death of Kowsalya is unnatural and not homicidal that too within seven years from the date of her marriage, there is no evidence to show that her death is due to demand of dowry soon before her death. In such circumstances, I am of the view, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 304(B) IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges under Section 304(B) IPC.

Now this Court has to decide whether the deceased Kowsalya was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the appellant/accused and whether the ingredients of Section 498A IPC have been made out? It is appropriate to extract Section 498A IPC, which reads as follows:

"498A-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty_Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.]"

Now the point to be decided is that whether the deceased Kowsalya was subjected to cruelty? It is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4/the star witnesses, who are neighbours of deceased Kowsalya. P.W.3/Karpagam in her evidence stated that on the fateful day (i.e.) on 11.04.2001, at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased Kowsalya came to her house and told that her husband had snatched her thali. P.W.3 on seeing Kowsalya without thali, tied yellow thread on her neck. At that time, P.W.4/Santhi was also there. Then P.W.3 and P.W.4 went to the accused house along with Kowsalya and questioned the same. The accused told them that the deceased Kowsalya herself handed over thali to the accused and then he had thrown the thali on the road. P.W.3 had taken that thali and handed over to Kowsalya to verify the same. At that time, Kowsalya told that 1/4 sovereign gold coin was missing and when Kowsalya told the accused that he himself snatched the thali, the accused left the place. The evidence of P.W.3 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4.

As per the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena, (2013) 8 AD 273 : AIR 2013 SC 2207 : (2013) CriLJ 1634 : (2013) 2 JT 617 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 331 : (2013) 2 SCALE 479 : (2013) 4 SCC 206 , there are three types of witnesses, first one is wholly reliable; second one is partly reliable; another one is wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be given without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. If the evidence is partly reliable, corroboration is necessary.

On considering the evidence of P.W.3/Karpagam and P.W.4/Santhi, there is no reason to discard their evidence and the evidence of P.W.3 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. Therefore, I am of the view, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are trustworthy and hence, it is reliable. Their evidence has clearly proved that on the date of occurrence, the deceased Kowsalya was subjected to cruelty in the hands of her husband/accused by snatching thali and thereby the accused caused her mental cruelty. So the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused for offence under Section 498A IPC. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the trial Court in respect of conviction under Section 498A IPC and hence, the conviction passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

Now this Court has to decide whether the appellant/accused has abetted the deceased Kowsalya for commission of suicide? As per the evidence of P.W.3, she intimated the fact to one Kanniyappan, who instructed her to bring the deceased Kowsalya to police station. So P.W.3 and P.W.4 had gone to the house of Kowsalya, at that time, her house was locked inside, then they broke open the door and witnessed that Kowsalya was hanging. From the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is seen that they have not stated anything about the abatement of suicide.

It is appropriate to consider Section 107 IPC, which reads as follows:

"107.Abetment of a thing.__ A person abets the doing of a thing,

who__

First.__Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.__Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or

Thirdly.___Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.___ A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.___Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of the act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

In the first ingredient, it was stated that "instigates any person to do that thing". In the case on hand, no instigation was found. As soon as P.W.3 went to the accused house, the accused told that the deceased Kowsalya herself has handed over her thali and when the same was questioned by P.W.3, he had thrown thali on the road and left the place and on verifying that thali, it was found that 1/4 sovereign gold coin was missing. So there is no evidence to show that the accused had instigated his wife Kowsalya for commission of suicide. Therefore, the first and second ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not made out.

Now this Court has to decide whether third ingredient "intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing" have been made out? According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the accused after consuming alcohol had snatched thali from his wife/Kowsalya, unable to bear the same, she was forced to commit suicide by the act of the accused. So the offence under Section 306 IPC is made out and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence under Section 306 IPC.

As already stated that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that except the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no evidence to show that the accused is in the habit of consuming alcohol. On perusing the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, they have not stated that the accused is in the habit of consuming alcohol. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that the appellant had snatched the thali for consuming alcohol does not merit acceptance. So the prosecution has not proved that the appellant herein has aided or instigated his wife/deceased Kowsalya to commit suicide. Because as soon as the appellant had snatched the thali, Kowsalya had intimated the same to P.W.3 and P.W.4, thereafter, P.W.3 and P.W.4 along with Kowsalya had gone to the house of the appellant and questioned about the act of accused, at that time, the appellant proclaimed that the deceased Kowsalya herself handed over her thali. Then, the appellant had thrown the thali on the road, which was taken by P.W.3 and handed over to deceased, on verification, they found that 1/4 sovereign gold coin was missing. Then the deceased told her husband that he would only snatch the same, but the accused left the place. So the ingredients of Section 107 IPC have not been made out. In my view, the trial Court cannot convict the accused for offence under Section 306 IPC on presumption that as if the accused snatched the thali for consuming alcohol and made her cruelty, hence she was forced to commit suicide. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges under Section 306 IPC.

As already stated supra, the appellant/accused is convicted for offence under Section 498A IPC? At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant/accused was already in prison for two years and now he is ready to compensate P.W.2/mother of the deceased Kowsalya and hence, some leniency may be shown in respect of quantum of sentence.

On considering the above submission, I am inclined to reduce the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default in payment to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Now the sentence is reduced from three years to two years and the fine amount is increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/- in default in payment to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount is Rs.30,000/-, out of which, Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.2/Nirmala, mother of the deceased Kowsalya.

In fine,

� The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

� The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for offences under Sections 304(B) and 306 IPC are hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

� The conviction passed by the trial Court for offence under Section 498A IPC is hereby confirmed and the sentence is modified as follows:

The sentence is reduced from three years to two years and the fine amount is increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/- in default in payment to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount is Rs.30,000/-, out of which, Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.2/Nirmala, mother of the deceased Kowsalya.

� Bail bond executed by the appellant/accused if any shall stand cancelled.

� The trial Court is directed to take effective steps to secure the appellant/accused to undergo the period of sentence as imposed by this Court (i.e.) two years, if the appellant/accused has not undergone the period.

� Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.