IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010/18TH KARTHIKA, 1932 CRL.A.No. 827 of 2000 ( ) ------------------------- SC.65/1998 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.VISAKARAN NADAR, EDAVAZHIKKARA VEEDU, MANTHARA, MULLARAVILA, MAMBAZHAKKARA DEOM, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE. 2. VISAKARAN NADAR @ BAPPU, S/O.SIVARAMAN, EDAVAZHIKKARA VEEDU, MANTHARA, MULLARAVILA, MAMBAZHAKKARA DEOM, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.J.DEVADANAM SRI.VINOD J.DEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------- THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2000 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 9th November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appellants (A1 and A2) along with third accused were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The first appellant is the son of second and third accused. The third accused was acquitted and the second accused is reported to be dead. The appeal filed by the second accused has finally abated on his death as per Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially since none of his near relatives have applied for leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal, in so far as it relates to the first appellant survives. 2. According to prosecution, the deceased Sunitha alias Glory was married by first appellant on 14.6.1994, in accordance with the religious rites. The couple has a child also in the wedlock, who was aged 7 months at the time of her death. During the marital life, all the accused (A1 to A3)used to harass the deceased Sunitha stating that the dowry given to her is too low etc. They used to insult her in front of her relatives, referring to them as fishermen etc. The first accused Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 2 also demanded more money for purchasing a trucker and Rs.5,000/- each was given by PW1 to him on two occasions. 3. The second accused had molested the deceased and since she was not obliging to his sexual demands, it was alleged that the child was not that of the first accused. About three days prior to the death of Sunitha, the first accused's trucker was seized, since there was default in payment of instalment. The deceased was insisted to bring Rs.5,000/- towards dowry, and he asked her to remain in her parents' house if such money is not brought. On hearing this, the deceased Sunitha was crying and PW3 happened to see the same. Because of the cruelty inflicted on the deceased Sunitha, she committed suicide on 24.10.1995 between 2.30 and 3 p.m., by setting fire to herself, after pouring kerosene. 4. Ext.P1 is the F.I. Statement given by none other than the brother of the deceased Sunitha. The investigation was commenced by the local police by lodging of the F.I.R. [Ext.P1(a)]. Since the investigation was not satisfactory, the relatives of deceased Sunitha made a move before the Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 3 Government and the case was transferred to the Crime Branch for investigation. The Crime Branch took up the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 3. 5. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW31 were examined, Exts.P1 to P15 and MO1 to MO6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. The first appellant did not adduce any evidence, but he only said that he is innocent of the allegations. Certain portions of the case diary statements were marked as Exts.D1 to D3, on the side of the appellant. 6. The trial court raised certain points for consideration and held that the deceased Sunitha committed suicide and that the prosecution succeeded in proving that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused 1 and 2, demanding dowry. The court also found that offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. It was also found that there is no evidence against the third accused relating to any offence and she was acquitted. 7. The accused 1 and 2 who are the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 4 They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine. The third accused was acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara are challenged in this appeal. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the records. The first question to be considered is whether deceased Sunitha committed suicide on 24.10.1995, as alleged by the prosecution. It is proved by the evidence of PW25, the doctor and the postmortem certificate that the deceased died due to burn injuries. This fact is not disputed. However, it appears from the cross-examination that the deceased Sunitha had no reason to commit suicide and that it could be a case of accidental burn. 9. Originally, the close relatives of the deceased, both brother and sister had no case that the first accused had done anything against the deceased Sunitha prior to her death. They had no case that he used to harass her. In the F.I. statement and also in evidence, PW1 asserted that the Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 5 deceased Sunitha used to visit his house frequently and she was happy on those occasions. When she came to her house, she had not made any complaint against her husband. He admitted in Ext.P1 that he has not made any mention that the accused had scolded the deceased Sunitha. In the F.I. statement, he has a definite case that the deceased Sunitha and her husband were having a very cordial relationship and they used to come and stay in his house for about 2 to 3 days in a month. 10. PW2 is none other than the sister of deceased Sunitha, to whom the deceased used to confide her problems etc. She gave evidence that she was questioned at the time of inquest and her statement was recorded also. She deposed that she had not stated at the time of inquest that the first accused had ill-treated the deceased demanding dowry and that the said fact is correct also. It is also stated by her that the deceased Sunitha and her husband used to visit her frequently and they used to come and stay in the house happily and these facts were stated by her at the time of inquest also. It is also in Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 6 her evidence that the deceased was brought to the house for confinement and all the relatives had taken part in the function happily. 11. PW2 also stated in evidence that at the time of marriage, it was agreed that 8 sovereigns of gold can be given and the proposal came when the deceased was staying with PW2 in her house. There was absolutely no quarrel or dispute regarding the ornaments agreed to be given at the time of marriage and both sides were happy. It is also stated in her evidence that a motor cycle was purchased by the first accused and that for purchase of the motor cycle, gold ornaments were sold, but on that point also, there was absolutely no quarrel between the deceased and the first appellant. She also stated that she herself had given some amount to the appellant for purchasing the motor cycle. 12. The evidence of PW3 is also more or less to the same effect. He stated in cross-examination that he used to visit the matrimonial house of the deceased Sunitha and no demand was made to him by first appellant or other accused Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 7 stating that the dowry given was low etc. It is also stated by him that a motor cycle was purchased by the first appellant and there was no quarrel between the couple regarding the sale of gold ornaments. It is further stated that the deceased was taken for confinement as per custom. She also stated that the couple had expressed their desire to live in a separate house. 13. PW5 is the nephew of the deceased Sunitha and he is the son of PW2. He also stated in chief examination itself that the deceased used to come to their house and the first appellant had not demanded dowry in his presence. He had gone to the house of the accused where the deceased Sunitha was residing and she had not made any complaint to PW5, whenever he made a visit. It is also brought out in evidence that the gold ornaments were handed over by deceased Sunitha herself for purchase of motor cycle by first appellant. She had also given the bangles of the child and also the chain and ring of the first accused. She had not expressed any complaint or regret for selling the gold ornaments or pledging the same. PW5 also stated that the deceased Sunitha never Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 8 stated that she would commit suicide and on the date of occurrence, he did not know whether any particular incident happened for the deceased Sunitha to commit suicide. 14. PW10 is another close relative, who is the daughter of PW2. She stated that the deceased Sunitha used to stay in their house prior to the marriage and thereafter. She also stated that the deceased was living happily till delivery and that the deceased and the appellant used to visit their house quite frequently and that they were very happy whenever they made visit along with the child. Even after the birth of the child, they used to come home happily. She had also stated that even one week prior to the incident, the deceased had visited her house along with the appellant and the child. They used to go to the church together. She had not made any complaint about giving gold ornaments for purchase of vehicle. 15. The evidence of the neighbours also are to the same effect. None of them had heard any quarrel from the house. PW13, who is the neighbour of the appellant also supported the prosecution stating that the second accused Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 9 used to consume liquor and quarrel with his wife. But, she never heard any of the accused scolding the deceased Sunitha. PW6, who is an independent witness gave evidence that the appellant and his wife were living happily in the house. He used to see them going to the Church happily. 16. In the above circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is what was the reason for the deceased Sunitha to allegedly commit suicide on the date of occurrence. She was having a child aged 7 months. She was found feeding the child when her husband and brother came home prior to the incident. The child was sleeping at the time of incident and the incident happened inside the kitchen. There was no smell of kerosene in th scene of occurrence or in the can as stated by the close relatives of the deceased Sunitha, who had seen the can in the kitchen immediately after the incident. 17. Though the case of prosecution is that deceased Sunitha had poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself, nothing is seized from the scene of occurrence or produced to indicate that there was use of kerosene by the Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 10 deceased Sunitha. 18. Though certain witnesses stated that a white can was seen at the occurrence, it was brought out in evidence that there was no smell of kerosene in it. PW2, who is none other than the sister of the deceased Sunitha, who had visited the place of occurrence immediately after the incident categorically stated that there was not even a drop of kerosene in the can and that the can was empty. It is also stated that there was not even smell of kerosene in the can. 19. PW1 also stated that in the can found at the scene, there was no kerosene and he stated that he could not say from where the kerosene came. Though the police would claim that a can was seized from the scene of occurrence, the said can was not marked in evidence, even though various other articles are marked. There is no reason why the can was not offered for marking, even though the specific challenge was made on the absence of kerosene at the scene, during cross examination. 20. This is not a case where there is only a mere Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 11 challenge on the improbability of committing suicide. It was brought out in evidence that as per the original case of prosecution, the first accused and his brother had come home by about 2 O' clock and had lunch together and they left the house by about 2.30 p.m. (vide Ext.P1). PW1 could not affirm that the burn injuries were sustained due to pouring of kerosene and setting fire. 21. Nothing is brought out in evidence to show that on the date of occurrence, anything unusual had happened in the house. Nobody has a case that on the date of occurrence prior to the incident, there was any commotion in the house. None of the neighbours who are examined in the case has given any evidence that just prior to the incident or on the date of occurrence, anything untoward had happened in the house. PW1 stated that he did not know about any particular incident having occurred on the date of occurrence. In the above circumstances, the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish that there was kerosene in the kitchen assumes significance, especially since the close relatives of the deceased Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 12 Sunitha asserted that there was not even smell of kerosene in the place of occurrence or even in the can. 22. The neighbours also gave evidence that there was no smell of kerosene. There is nothing in the postmortem examination report to show use of kerosene for burning. The doctor has not stated that any smell of kerosene emanated from the body of the deceased. It is also relevant to note that as per the postmortem examination report, no burn injuries were seen on both the legs but the burn injuries were on the trunk and upward. The possibility of catching fire on the middle part of the body, therefore, cannot be ruled out. The body was found in the kitchen. 23. Since there was no occasion for the deceased Sunitha to commit suicide on the date of occurrence, there should have been a thorough investigation into the reason for the alleged suicide. In this context, it is relevant to note that the investigators were not sure whether the case was one of suicide, murder or accidental fire, at least in the beginning. The crime was registered as early as on 24.10.1995 and till the case Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 13 was transferred to the Crime Branch, no offence was included, as admitted by the Investigating Officer (PW28), who conducted the initial investigation. PW28 stated that he was conducting the investigation immediately on the next day of the incident as a Circle Inspector and in the cross examination, he deposed that he could not confirm the cause of death during his investigation. 24. When a question was put whether PW28 had felt like including Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which are cognizable offences, he stated that he did not file a report including those offences, since he could not confirm whether it was a murder or not. He felt that the sections can be included after conclusion of the investigation. Though the crime is registered as early as on 24.10.1995, an investigation was conducted into the offences under Section 304B and 498A IPC by including these provisions only on 23.5.1996. 25. It is also clear from the discussion made above that as per the original case, none of the close relatives had an allegation that the appellant had in any manner ill-treated or Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 14 inflicted any cruelty on the deceased during their marital life. On the other hand, it is brought out in cross examination that they were living happily with the child in the same house. But, there is a deviation from the statement made by these witnesses towards the investigation made at a later stage. PW29 is the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of various witnesses. 26. It has brought out from his evidence that though PW2, who is the sister of the deceased, to whom the deceased Sunitha allegedly discussed her problems in the matrimonial home, deviated from her original case. No investigation was made as to why she gave a different version in the subsequent statements. PW29 was cross examined on these aspects. It is brought out from his evidence that at the time of inquest, when PW2, the sister of the deceased was questioned, she had not given any complaint against the first accused. On the other hand, she specifically stated and admitted in her evidence that the first accused had not done anything against the deceased on demand of dowry and that is what she had stated at the Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 15 time of preparation of inquest. 27. According to PW29, he was satisfied with such statements made at the time of inquest was not correct. When he was asked whether he had questioned PW2 as to under what circumstances she had given such a statement at the time of inquest, she told him that she happened to say such things in the mental condition in which she was then. But, such fact is not recorded by him anywhere in the case diary. From the above facts, it can be reasonably inferred that there was no investigation as to why there was a deviation from the original case put forward by the close relatives of the deceased that the first accused had not ill-treated the deceased while they were living in the matrimonial home. 28. In the above circumstances, the fact whether the deceased has committed suicide itself is not proved. The evidence adduced in this case, particularly the admissions made by the close relatives of the deceased Sunitha and the neighbours would indicate that there was no ill-treatment from the side of the first appellant on deceased Sunitha and any act Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 16 of cruelty on the part of the first accused would not have driven her to commit suicide. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused has committed any of the offences alleged against him. 29. Before concluding, it is also relevant to mention that it has come out in the evidence of some of the neighbouring witnesses that when the first appellant rushed to the house on getting information and found that the deceased Sunitha sustained burn injuries, he had beaten up his own father, who is the second accused, in rage. It is also in evidence that the second accused thereafter, even attempted to commit suicide and the neighbours had to forcibly take away the rope from his hand. 30. In the F.I. Statement as well as in the inquest report, allegations are made that the second accused had done something against the deceased Sunitha, when she was living in the matrimonial home and the close relatives had such a case in the beginning itself. These facts would only confirm the admissions made by several witnesses that the first accused Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 17 was having a cordial and happy relationship with deceased Sunitha and they were living happily. This may be the reason why he had reacted against his own father, who is the second accused immediately on reaching home on getting information. 31. It is true, as learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the close relatives of the deceased Sunitha had given evidence while examined in court that first appellant had insulted her. He had also demanded the deceased to get money from her house for paying the instalments for the vehicle and she had also told her that if she is unable to bring the money, she could remain in the house itself etc. PW3 also stated that when he went to the house of first appellant, he saw the deceased Sunitha crying and she told him that the first appellant had asked her to bring Rs.5,000/- from her house or else she could stay back in her own house etc. 32. As discussed by me earlier, this case has been developed at a subsequent stage and there is no investigation why such a deviation is made regarding the relationship between deceased Sunitha and first accused. The very same Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 18 persons, who had told the police at an earlier context that the relationship between accused and deceased Sunitha was cordial and they were happy had deviated from the statements and later stated that the accused had used to ill-treat her by demanding money etc. But, in the evidence in cross- examination, they again came forward with a case that the couple was happy during their matrimonial life. 33. While appreciating the evidence, the entire version has to be read as a whole to make conclusions. The court cannot pick and choose some portions, which are supporting prosecution to hold a person guilty. When the case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence as a whole is appreciated in its totality, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to establish that the first accused committed the offences alleged against him. The conviction and sentence passed against the first appellant are therefore, unsustainable. In the result, the following order is passed : (i) The conviction and sentence passed against the first appellant under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 34 of Crl.Appeal No.827 of 2000 19 the Indian Penal Code are set aside. (ii) The first appellant is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the said offences. (iii) The first appellant is set at liberty forthwith. (iv) The release order shall be issued forthwith. (v) The appeal, in so far as it relates to the second appellant has abated. This appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs (true copy) P.S. to Judge.