BAIL SLIP The Appellant/Accused viz., Sankar, S/o. Sivarama Pillai, was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated 20.2.2003 and made in CRL MP No.667 of 2003 in Crl Appeal No.132 of 2003 on the file of this court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :17.2.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2003 Sankar ... Appellant/Accused Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police Poonamallee Chennai 56. ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.4), Poonamallee in S.C.No.343 of 2001 dated 10.1.2003. For Appellant :- Mr.R.John Sathyan For Respondent :- Mr.N.Kumanan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) JUDGMENT The appellant who is the sole accused in S.C.No.343 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee stands convicted for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced under Section 498-A to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and sentenced under Section 306 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The said sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused got married on 16.9.1998 and on the date of occurrence i.e. on 30.5.2000, the deceased consumed poison and she died on 2.6.2000. On 30.5.2000 at 7.30 a.m. the deceased and A1 quarrelled with each other regarding the redemption of the jewels pledged by the husband, which were presented by her parents. Immediately, after the quarrel A1 left and gone to his sister's house. At that time, the grandson of P.W.1 came and informed that his aunt consumed poison. Immediately, the police also came and she was admitted in Ramachandra Hospital, where she died. On 30.5.2000, P.W.1 the mother of the deceased gave Ex.P1 complaint to the Mangadu Police Station. She has stated in the complaint that the deceased and the accused have got 10 months old male baby. Further, in the complaint she would state that regarding the redemption of jewels wordy quarrel arose between them and her daughter consumed poison. P.W.2 is the Doctor who gave first aid treatment to the wife of the accused on 30.5.2000. P.W.3 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem. He would state in his evidence that the deceased died due to poison. P.W.4 Vignesh is doing 2nd standard and he has not been examined. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Mahazar witness. P.W.7 is the R.D.O who conducted inquest. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector, who received the complaint. P.W.9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case. P.W.10, the successor Investigating Officer, took up further investigation and laid charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498 (A), 306, and 304 (B). 3. Before the trial court on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied his complicity. The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused is that while the accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 304 (B) he has been found guilty under Sections 498-A and 306 alone for which no offence has been made out. Hence, the prayed that the appeal has to be allowed. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that even though for the offence under Section 304 -B, the accused has been acquitted, the other charges have been proved. Hence, he prayed that the conviction and and sentence imposed by the trial court has to be confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. As per the evidence of P.W.1 the mother of the deceased, it is seen that the marriage had taken place between the deceased and accused and they were bestowed with a male baby of 10 months old. Further, from the evidence it is seen that both A1 and deceased involved in the road accident. At that time they were admitted in Ramachandra Hospital. After pledging the jewels presented by P.W.1 only they had spent for treatment. Further, it is seen that the deceased had already undergone major surgery on the head due to the accident for which considerable amount has been spent. On the fateful day, the quarrel had taken place in between the couple, only regarding the redemption of the jewels already pledged by the accused. Since the accused is a contractor of pesticides, he would keep pesticides in his house. On the fateful day, after the quarrel had taken place he went to the house of his sister and during that time only the deceased consumed pesticide. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5, the brother of the deceased, it is seen that dowry harassment has not been made by the accused at any point of time. Further, it is seen that the jewels have been pledged by the accused only in connection with the treatment of his wife viz., the deceased. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge of dowry harassment. However, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, convicted the accused for the offences of abetment and cruelty under sections 306 -B and 498-A respectively. From the reading of the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, one can come to the conclusion that no harassment as well as cruelty and no abetment has been made by the accused to the deceased. Therefore, I am of the view that the offences charged against the accused have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction made by the trial court under the said sections is not based on sound reasoning and the same is not correct. 7 . In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Krr/ To 1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.4), Poonamallee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. -do- Through the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee 4. -Do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu 5. The Superintendnet, Central Prison, Vellore 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee, Chennai-56 7. The Officer-in-Charge, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai 8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.R.John Sathyan, Advocate, SR.12029 Crl.A.No.132 of 2003 PKB (CO) RH (16.3.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/