CRL A/493/2016 of D.NAGARAJ Vs STATE REP BY on 7 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.493 of 2016 has been filed by A1, who was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.449 of 2011 dated 16.06.2016 and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Crl.A.No.218/2018 has been filed by the State, challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.449 of 2011 dated 16.06.2016, in respect of A2 to A6, wherein A2 was acquitted of the offence under Sections 498A, 506(ii) and 306 IPC, A3 was acquitted of the offence under sections 498A, 506(ii) r/w 34 and 306 IPC and A4 to A6 were acquitted of the offences under sections 498A and 306 IPC.

2. (i) The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A6 and the split-up accused/ A7, were relatives of the deceased through the marriage of PW1; that PW1 is the husband of the deceased; that after the marriage between PW1 and they deceased, they both lived along with the accused in the house of A1; that all the accused had committed cruelty in several ways ever since they got married, as a result of which, the deceased was forced to commit suicide. On 20.07.2010, a complaint was lodged by P.W.1, husband of the deceased before the Sub-Inspector of Police, R1, Mambalam Police Station, stating that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by his family members, as a result of which, she committed suicide. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.1140/2010 under section 174(3) Cr.P.C. An enquiry was conducted by the RDO, besides investigation by PW.17. Upon investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Magistrate.

(ii) After complying with all the formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and based on the materials available on record, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A r/w 34 IPC, 304B or in alternate 306 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, charges were altered and reframed for the offences under Section 498A and 306 IPC as against A1, for the offence under Section 498A, 506(ii) and 306 IPC as against A4 to A6 and for the offence under Sections 498A, 506(ii) r/w 34 and 306 IPC

as against A3.

(iii) During trial, in order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P23. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined, but marked Exs.D1 to D9, documents. Considering all the above, the trial Court held that A2 to A6 were not guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of all the charges. However, the trial Court, convicted A1 for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and acquitted A1 of the offence under Sections 506(ii) and 306 IPC.

3. Mr.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.493/2016 would submit that the trial Court has not stated as to how the deceased was subjected to cruelty and it simply observed that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 & 7 would reveal that A1 had committed cruelty on the deceased; that the evidence of witnesses would show that there was a dispute between A1 on the one side and P.W1 on the other, with regard to sharing of property and only because of that dispute, P.W1 had made a false complaint that the deceased was subjected to cruelty; that the evidence of the witness, in any case, do not suggest that the victim was subjected to cruelty of such nature which had driven her to commit suicide or there was any dowry demand and cruelty in connection with dowry demand; that the trial court, having acquitted the co- accused on the same evidence, ought to have extended the same benefit to A1 as well. He would further submit that the prosecution did not challenge the findings of acquittal of A1 in respect of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, responding to the above submissions in the appeal against conviction, submitted that the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498A IPC do not warrant any interference, as it is based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and that PWs.1 to 5 and 7, had spoken about the cruelty meted out to the deceased. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon Ex.P7, diary said to have been written by the deceased in addition to Ex.P6, e-mail sent by the deceased. As regards the appeal against acquittal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of these witnesses which was the basis for convicting A1 has to be believed and their evidence would reveal that the other accused are equally guilty of the offence under section 498A IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would therefore, submit that the other accused are liable to be convicted not only for the offence under Section 498A IPC but also for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

5. It appears that A7 was tried separately. This Court had dismissed the petition filed by A7 challenging the dismissal of the discharge petition. A7 had challenged the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. (Crl.)No.3364/2014 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that this Court was not right in refusing to discharge A7 and thus, discharged A7.

6. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 19 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased; P.W.2 was working as maid in the house of the deceased; P.W.3 is the father of the deceased, P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased; P.W.5 is the sister of the deceased; P.W.6 is the friend of the deceased; P.W.7 was the driver of P.W1; P.W.8 is the friend of the deceased. P.W.9 is the police photographer; P.W.10 is the witness to the observation mahazar; P.W.11 is the doctor who is said to have treated the deceased on the date of occurrence; P.W.12 speaks about the earlier complaint said to have been made by the deceased to the police; P.W.13 is the Sub- Inspector of Police who assisted the investigating officer during investigation; P.W.14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R. under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; P.W.15 is the post-mortem doctor who had issued Ex.P15 post mortem certificate; P.W.16 is the doctor who made entry in the Accident Register, Ex.P16; P.W.17 is the RDO who submitted the Inquest report Ex.P18; P.W.18 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police who conducted investigation and P.W.19 is the Forensic expert.

7. The fact that the deceased committed suicide is not in dispute. According to the RDO/P.W.17, the deceased could have died due to differences with, and the cruelty said to have been committed by, the in-laws. Admittedly P.W.1 had married the deceased pursuant to their romantic relationship. P.W.3, father of the deceased does not speak about any demand of dowry, but would state that he had gifted jewels and cash to his daughter at the time of marriage. P.W.4 also did not state about any dowry demand. On the other hand, she had stated in her cross examination that they had gifted about 70 sovereign jewels totally, since the marriage. P.W.5 , sister of the deceased also would state that the jewels were gifted to her sister at the time of marriage. Though P.W.1 would state that the accused demanded dowry from his wife, it is falsified by the evidence of other witnesses i.e., parents and sister of the deceased. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence to infer that there was dowry demand or cruelty in connection with dowry demand.

8. The trial Court had convicted the first accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC, based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7. P.W.1 is the key witness of the prosecution, who is the husband of the deceased. He would accuse the accused of cruelty when they both lived in the house of A1. The allegations are very vague. The allegation only suggest that there was only property dispute between A1 and P.W1. The details of alleged cruelty by the accused/A1 to the deceased is not mentioned. The alleged occurrence is said to

have taken place for over a period of six years. Though there is an allegation that the appellant had attacked the deceased with chappal on one occasion, it is not clear as to whether any complaint was lodged with regard to that incident and as to what was the action taken by the deceased thereafter. It is pertinent to mention here that the deceased herself was working in Gujarat as Sub- Inspector, C.R.P.F., for some time.

9. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC, there must be a specific allegation with regard to the nature of cruelty and as to when the said cruelty was committed. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 do not suggest any such specific allegation against A1 or others. The allegations, at best, suggest differences between the relatives living in a joint family. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge, for acquitting A2 to A6 would squarely apply to the appellant/A1 as well. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 498A as against A1 has not been established.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had referred to e-mail Ex.P6 which is stated to have been sent by the deceased to P.W.7. She referred to the appellant banging the terrace door hard and that she thought that a thief had entered the house. This incident is said to have been taken place on 01.02.2010.

It cannot be inferred from that single incident that the appellant caused cruelty which would attract the offence under section 498A IPC. Similarly, the diary Ex.P7 relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is of no use as the prosecution had not proved that it was written by the deceased. The Investigating Officer-P.W18, had admitted in the cross examination that the diary was not seized when they searched the premises of the deceased immediately after the occurrence and that it was handed over by the sister of the deceased later. He would also state that no investigation was conducted to compare the handwriting in the diary with the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the diary or its entry would be of no avail to the prosecution. In fact, even the trial Court has not referred to the entries in the diary.

11. The defence had marked several documents to show that there was a property dispute between A1 and P.W.1. The documents marked are, Ex.D4- plaint in O.S.No.3883/2010, Ex.D5- judgment dated 30.05.2011 in the said suit and Ex.D7- a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.4820/2010, between the parties, would show that there was a dispute with regard to the property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution at best suggests the usual differences between relatives living in a joint family and do not suggest cruelty. In any case, the allegations of cruelty are vague, without any specific details or particulars.

12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish cruelty soon before death. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act has been rebutted by the accused, and the evidence only suggests that the deceased was hypersensitive. It is not the case where the husband of the deceased is accused of cruelty. Moreover, the prosecution has not challenged the findings of acquittal of A1 of the offence under Section 306 IPC,who was held guilty of cruelty by the trial Court. Therefore, the challenge to the acquittal of the offence under section 306 IPC as regards by the other accused has to fail on this ground also. In any case, since there is no evidence to prove the offence under section 306 IPC, the acquittal is confirmed.

13. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

14. It is also seen that the appeal filed by the de-facto complainant/P.W.5 was withdrawn and according to the learned counsel for the accused, there was settlement arrived between the parties. However, there is no document to confirm such fact but the fact that the appeal has been withdrawn is recorded.

15. In the result,

(i) The Criminal Appeal No.493/2016 filed by the appellant/A1 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 by the Court of Sessions, Mahila Court, Chennai, passed in S.C.No.449 of 2011 dated 16.06.2016 are set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

(ii) The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/A1 shall stand cancelled.

iii) The Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2018 filed by the State is dismissed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai – 600 014.

SUNDER MOHAN J. vsi CRL A No. 493 of 2016 and CRL A No. 218 of 2018 07-10-2026