Thursday, July 4, 2013

11 yrs to freedom: Road accident.Huge medi bill.Jewls pledged.Quarrel re. Jewel.Wife commits suicide.NO dowry demand. Still hubby charged with Murder 304-B and Cruelty 498A. Abetment of suicide 306 added by lower court !!. So, husband ordered imprisonment etc etc... HC appreciates the facts and finally acquits the man ....**just that it takes 11 years to freedom**



to Quote the honourable HC
************************************
"..........trial court, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5,  convicted the accused  for  the offences of abetment and cruelty under sections 306 -B and 498-A respectively. From the reading of the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, one can come to the conclusion that no harassment as well as cruelty  and no abetment has been made by the accused to the deceased.  Therefore,  I am of the  view that   the offences charged against the accused have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the  conviction   made by the trial court under the said sections   is not based on sound reasoning and the same is  not correct..........."



My Questions
************************************
To me, This case once again shows how the lower courts are free to decide as they please, and in the words of the HC "...conviction   made by the trial court under the said sections   is not based on sound reasoning and the same is  not correct...."

Just because someone's reasoning is wrong, LIVES... yes ...HUMAN LIVES are wasted at the stroke of a pen. Why can't the lower court appreciate what the HC appreciated ?? why should the human life / time / public money / private money be wasted because the lower court did not appreciate the evidence ?? or reason out things properly ??




***********************************************************
CASE from JUDIS DOT NET WEBSITE
***********************************************************



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :17.2.2011

Coram
    
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

Criminal Appeal  No.132 of 2003


Sankar                        ... Appellant

 Vs.

The State  of Tamil Nadu
rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Poonamallee
Chennai 56.                    ... Respondent

    Criminal Appeal filed under Section  374 of Cr.P.C.  against  the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast  Track Court No.4), Poonamallee in S.C.No.343 of 2001 dated 10.1.2003.

          For Appellant         :- Mr.R.John Sathyan
                    For   Respondent  :-  Mr.N.Kumanan                                                                                                Govt.   Advocate (Crl. Side) 

JUDGMENT

     The appellant  who is the sole accused in S.C.No.343  of 2001   on the file  of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,  Poonamallee stands convicted  for the offences under sections 498-A and   306 IPC  and sentenced under Section 498-A to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year  and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and sentenced under Section 306 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years  and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.  The  said sentences were ordered to run   concurrently. Aggrieved by the said  conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

    2. The case of the prosecution is that   the deceased and the accused got married  on  16.9.1998 and on the date of occurrence  i.e. on 30.5.2000, the deceased consumed poison and she died on 2.6.2000.  On 30.5.2000 at   7.30 a.m.   the deceased and A1  quarrelled with each other  regarding the redemption of the jewels  pledged by the husband,  which were presented  by her parents.   Immediately,  after the quarrel A1 left and gone to his sister's house.  At that time,  the grandson of P.W.1 came and informed that  his   aunt consumed poison.   Immediately, the police also came and she was admitted in Ramachandra Hospital, where she died.  On 30.5.2000, P.W.1 the mother of the deceased gave  Ex.P1 complaint to the Mangadu Police Station. She has stated in the complaint that  the deceased and the accused have got 10 months old male baby. Further, in the complaint she would state that regarding the redemption of jewels  wordy quarrel arose  between them and her daughter  consumed  poison. P.W.2  is the Doctor  who gave first aid treatment to the wife of the accused on 30.5.2000.  P.W.3 is the Doctor who  conducted post mortem. He would state  in his evidence that  the deceased died due to poison. P.W.4  Vignesh is doing 2nd standard and he has not been examined.  P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Mahazar witness. P.W.7 is the R.D.O who conducted inquest. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector, who received the complaint. P.W.9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case.  P.W.10, the successor Investigating Officer, took up further investigation  and laid charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498 (A), 306, and 304 (B).

    3. Before the trial court  on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10  were examined and  Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect   of the incriminating  materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied his complicity. The trial court on consideration  of the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant  and sentenced him as stated above against which the present appeal has been filed.

    4. The  contention of the  learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused is that while the accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 304 (B) he has been found guilty under Sections 498-A and 306 alone for which no offence has been made out.  Hence, the prayed that  the appeal  has to be allowed.

    5. The learned  Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that even though for the offence  under Section 304 -B, the accused has been acquitted, the other charges have been proved. Hence,  he prayed that the  conviction and and sentence imposed by the trial court  has to be confirmed.

    6. As per the evidence of P.W.1 the mother of the deceased, it is seen that the marriage had taken place  between the deceased and accused  and they were bestowed  with a male baby of 10 months old. Further,  from the evidence it is seen that both A1 and deceased  involved in the road accident. At that time they were admitted in Ramachandra Hospital. After pledging the jewels presented by P.W.1 only they had spent for treatment. Further,  it is seen that the deceased had already   undergone major surgery on the head due to the  accident for which considerable amount has been spent.  On the fateful day, the quarrel had taken place in between  the couple,  only regarding the redemption of the jewels already pledged by the accused.  Since the accused is a contractor of pesticides,  he would keep pesticides in his house.  On the fateful day,  after the quarrel had taken place he went to the house of his sister and   during that time only the  deceased consumed pesticide.    From the evidence of  P.W.1 and P.W.5, the brother of the deceased,  it is seen that dowry harassment has not been made by the accused at any point of time.  Further,  it is seen that the jewels  have been pledged  by the accused only in connection with the treatment of his wife viz., the deceased.  Therefore,  I am of the view that  the trial court has rightly  acquitted the accused of the charge of dowry harassment. However, the  trial court, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5,  convicted the accused  for  the offences of abetment and cruelty under sections 306 -B and 498-A respectively. From the reading of the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, one can come to the conclusion that no harassment as well as cruelty  and no abetment has been made by the accused to the deceased.  Therefore,  I am of the  view that   the offences charged against the accused have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the  conviction   made by the trial court under the said sections   is not based on sound reasoning and the same is  not correct.

    7 . In the result,  the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside and the appellant is   acquitted.  The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.  Thus, the appeal is allowed.  










Krr/

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast  Track Court No.4), Poonamallee.

2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Chennai