MADANKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in S.C.No.340 of 2016 dtd. 16/3/2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai-600 003.

(2.) The appellants/accused in S.C.No.340 of 2016 convicted by the Trial Court by judgment dtd. 16/3/2022 and sentenced them as follows:

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the first appellant is the husband of the deceased, the second and third appellant are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Selviyammal. The first appellant and the deceased got married on 28/9/2012. During the marriage, customary sridhana articles presented. The deceased Selviyammal was a Graduate and the first appellant was in the photography business. It was a marriage of choice. After the marriage, the deceased stayed with the appellants where she was not treated properly, she was harassed, humiliated and further her jewels were pledged. The first appellant was addicted to alcohol. Later, the first appellant and the deceased were living separately. Thereafter, the situation had not improved and the appellants demanded additional dowry, humiliating the deceased and further demanded setting up a separate photo studio for the first appellant. The defacto complainant/mother of the victim) pledged her property and gave Rs.2.00 lakhs for setting up a Studio which the first appellant could not successfully run, again fell in debt, addicted to alcohol and the deceased was continuously abused and assaulted. Thereafter, the defacto complainant/mother of the deceased took her daughter and her son-in-law to her house and they were staying there. Again the first appellant not attended any work. The defacto complainant was working as a Cook, she used to go for work by 7:00 a.m. and return back by 9:00 p.m. This is her daily routine. Even prior to the day of the incident i.e., 3/5/2015 at night hours, there was a fight between the deceased and the first appellant. Thereafter, on the next day morning, the defacto complainant left for her job and at about 8:00 a.m., when she called her daughter, she was not responding, hence she came back home, found a crowd in front of her house. She opened the door and found her daughter lying on the floor and the first appellant was sitting in a corner of the room speaking over phone. When enquired, he informed that she had fallen down and sustained injury and thereafter, the defacto complainant took her daughter to Excellent Care Super Speciality Hospital, Velachery but the first appellant/A1 was not showing any response and stayed back. PW5/Doctor who examined the deceased Selviyammal found that she was brought dead and recorded in Ex.P10 that a clear ligature mark was seen on the neck. PW1 went to the police station, lodged a complaint to PW6, who registered FIR/Ex.P11 and finding that the death has taken place within 7 1/2 years of marriage informed PW8/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who received FIR and sent a request to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) through Ex.P14 to conduct inquest. PW8 visited the Hospital, inspected the body and thereafter sent the body to the mortuary of Government Hospital, Royapettah. Thereafter, PW8 wisited the scene of occurrence, enquired the witnesses including the defacto complainant, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P8 and rough sketch/Ex.P15 in the presence of witnesses, collected the Dupatta found inside the house of the deceased and the diary written by her. After completion of inquest, received the report from the RDO confirming that the cause of death is the habit and behaviour of the first appellant, addiction to alcohol and subjecting the victim to cruelty P.W.8 continued with the investigation and sent the seized materials to the Court, MO1/Dupatta, Ex.P2/diary, Ex.P3/SSLC mark sheet of the deceased, Ex.P4/HSC mark sheet of the deceased, Ex.P5/letter by the deceased to the CM and Ex.P6/long size note book all collected, sent to Handwriting Expert. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem was examined and a postmortem report collected, confirming death was due to asphyxia due to hanging. Thereafter Sec. was altered to offence under Sec. 306 IPC. Since PW8 was transferred, the file was handed over to the succeeding Assistant Commissioner of Police/P.W.10. In the meanwhile, PW9/Inspector of police who was assisting the investigation on getting information about A1 in this case, arrested him on 2/10/2015. On 7/5/2015, the defacto complainant appeared before the Inspector and submitted the hand written notebook of the deceased/Ex.P6. PW10 took up investigation, collected forensic report along with the reasoning sheet confirming handwriting of the deceased, death note and the appellants are the reason for taking the extreme step. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, PW1 to PW10 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 marked, MO1 and MO2 produced on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above.