CRL A/684/2019 of KALIYAMOORTHY Vs STATE REP BY on 9 October 2026

ORDER

The appeal challenges the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2. (i) It is the case of the appellant that his daughter got married to the second respondent herein on 01.06.2014; that after marriage, she was subjected to harassment in many ways; that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty in connection to dowry demand; that unable to bear the humiliation and harassment, she committed suicide on 28.06.2015 at about 01.45 p.m., at the residence of the second respondent; and thus committed, the offences under Section 306 IPC.

(ii) On the complaint given by the appellant, a case in Crime No.372 of 2015 was registered under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C., Thereafter, the offence was altered and upon investigation, the final report was filed against the second respondent for the offences under Section 306 IPC before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 306 IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty’.

(iii) On the side of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The second respondent had examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Exts.D1 and D2.

(iv) The trial Court found that the prosecution had not established that the second respondent had caused cruelty either in connection with the dowry demand or any other form of cruelty to drive the victim to commit suicide; that the defence on the other hand had established that the victim was suffering from mental illness; that she had attempted suicide twice, even before the marriage; and therefore, the second respondent is not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defacto complainant however, would submit that the trial Court had ignored the evidence of PW1 to PW4, who have stated that the deceased called PW2 before committing suicide and informed her that the second respondent demanded dowry and caused harassment in connection with the said dowry demand; and that the RDO/PW7 had not conducted his enquiry properly by examining all the witnesses and had simply relied upon the medical report filed by the second respondent; and therefore, would pray for setting aside the Judgment of acquittal.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent however, would submit that the Judgment is based on the evidence on record; that the second respondent had established that PW1 and PW2 had suppressed the mental illness of the deceased and got her married to the second respondent; that the

Doctor/DW1 who had treated the deceased had deposed that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, which has been found to be true not only by the RDO, but by the Court below based on the evidence; and that the presumption of innocence has been confirmed by the trial Court; and that this Court would not ordinarily interfere in an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings are perverse, which is not so in this case.

5. The prosecution, as stated earlier, examined 9 witnesses. PW1 is the father of the deceased and the defacto complainant (the appellant herein). PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is the neighbour of the deceased. PW4 is a close relative of the deceased. PW5 is the postmortem doctor. PW6 is the Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. PW7 is the Revenue Division Officer who conducted the enquiry and marked Ext.P5 report. PW8 and PW9 are the investigation officers.

6. The marriage between the second respondent and the deceased took place on 01.06.2014. The suicide was committed within 7 years of marriage. As per Section 113 A of the evidence Act, if it is shown that the wife committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty soon before death, the Court can draw the presumption that her suicide was abetted by her husband or relatives. It is the specific case of the appellant that prior to her committing suicide, the deceased called PW2 and informed about dowry demand. Though the FIR was registered on 28.06.2015, strangely, the FIR was sent to the learned Magistrate only on 30.01.2017.

7. Be that as it may, though PW1 to PW4 speak about the alleged dowry demand, it is seen that their evidence has been falsified by the defence of the second respondent. The second respondent has established that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness. DW1 is the doctor who had treated the deceased and he had marked Ext.D1 series. He had deposed that the deceased suffered from “recurrent brief depressive disorder” and had explained the nature of illness in his deposition. He had also stated that the deceased had attempted suicide twice earlier.

8. The RDO, in the report Ext.P5, also after examining the witnesses PW1 to PW4, had concluded that the deceased committed suicide due to her illness. The RDO had also observed that before the commission of suicide, the deceased had no differences either with the second respondent or his parents and that there was no material to establish dowry demand by the second respondent.

9. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the second respondent it is seen that the second respondent had not only rebutted the statutory presumption but, had created more than reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is the view that the finding of the trial Court is plausible and no interference is called for in this appeal against acquittal.

10. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Cuddalore in S.C.No.108 of 2017 dated 07.02.2019 is confirmed. 09-10-2026 TSG To

1. The Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Panrutti Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Cr. No. 372/2015).

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 684 of 2019 09-10-2026