LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-15

SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Decided On August 03, 2012
SRINIVASAN Appellant
V/S
STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.09.2008, made in S.C.No.257 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, whereby the accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 498A IPC and 306 IPC. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo six months simple imprisonment each. They were convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default in payment to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment each.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a charge sheet against the appellants/accused stating that the marriage between A1 and the deceased Kavitha was solemnized on 26.01.2001. Due to the lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. A2 and A3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. On the fateful day, (i.e.) on 02.08.2005, at 9.00 a.m., the deceased unable to bear the cruelty caused by the accused 1 to 3, committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home. Thereby the accused 1 to 3 were committed the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

(3.) CHALLENGING the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as per the evidence of P.W.8/Manoharan, he carried on mediation between A1 and deceased Kavitha. He went to the house of P.W.3, who is the sister of Kavitha and at that time, Kavitha told him that she wants to live with A1 separately, since A1 is the only son, his parents are not willing to set up the separate family. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased is having depression and hence, she committed suicide on her own reason. He pointed out the evidence of P.W.1 and stated that Kavitha wanted to marry a Government servant and hence, there was a delay in her marriage. A1 is not a Government servant and he is doing business and as his character was good, Kavitha was given marriage to him. Since Kavitha was a B.Com., graduate, she wants to join Bank service, which was refused by her in-laws. As per the evidence of P.W.3, in page-21 of the typed set of papers, she was stated that her sister was attempted to commit suicide twice before this incident. It is to be noted that Ex.D1 is the suicide note, which was seized from the place, where the body of Kavitha has been laid down, but the document was not placed before the Court and the trial Court has not considered this aspect. It is further submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are relative witnesses and they are interested witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8, the deceased Kavitha made petty quarrels with A1. Most of the independent witnesses deposed that the deceased had committed suicide on her own reason only. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and hence, there is no mensrea for abetment of committing suicide. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of this appeal.