CHINNAKODI vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 09-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
CNR:{HCMD011052532018}
1. Chinnakodi
2. Kamayee
..Appellants/Accused 1 and 2
Vs
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Usilampatti Circle,
Madurai.
(Crime No.138 of 2010)
..Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records relating to the judgment dated 16.08.2018 made in
S.C.No. 334 of 2012 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Madurai and set aside the conviction made against Appellants and allow
the appeal.
For Appellants : Mr. C. Ramesh,
for Mr. M. Suresh Kumar.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*
__________
Page  1  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Court, Madurai, in S.C. No. 334 of 2012, dated 16.08.2018.
2. On perusal of the records, it is found that on 27.02.2010, at
about 11.30 a.m., PW10 Senthilkumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,
Usilampatti Town Police Station received Ex.P1 complaint from PW1,
Dharmarajan and registered Ex.P5 First Information Report in Crime
No.138 of 2010 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He forwarded the First Information
Report to the Inspector of Police for investigation. He also forwarded the
original complaint and the First Information Report to the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, and sent the other copies to his superior
officers.
3. PW11 Dhanapal, the then Inspector of Police, Usilampatti, has
taken up the investigation on 27.02.2010. He visited the place of
occurrence and, at about 12.30 p.m., prepared Ex.P2 Observation
Mahazar and Ex.P6 Rough sketch in the presence of Gurunathan and
PW7 Mokkamayan. Thereafter, he visited the Government Rajaji
Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the
__________
Page  2  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P7 Inquest
Report. He then examined the de-facto complainant and the witnesses,
PW2 Jeyamani, PW3 Maharajan, Sekar, PW5 Petchi, PW4 Singam, PW6
Panju and Muthusamy and recorded their statements.
4. On 11.03.2010, at about 12.00 p.m., PW11 arrested the Second
Accused, at Nalluthevanpatti Village with the assistance of a Woman
Police Constable. He thereafter brought her to the police station and
remanded her to judicial custody. On 21.05.2010, he examined Dr.
Purushothaman, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the
body of the deceased, and recorded his statement.
5. Subsequently, PW15 has taken up the investigation on
09.02.2011. After perusing the investigation conducted by PW11
Dhanapal, he laid the final report before the learned Jurisdictional
Magistrate.
6. The final report was taken cognizance by the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Usilampatti. The learned
Magistrate issued summons to the Accused and, upon their appearance,
furnished them with copies of the documents relied upon by the
prosecution under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since
__________
Page  3  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
the offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court,
Madurai.
7. The Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, has taken
cognizance of the said case in S.C. No.334 of 2012 and made it over to
the Trial Court for trial in accordance with law. Upon the appearance of
the Accused and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court has framed
charges against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 306 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the
Accused. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
8. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. Upon the closure of the prosecution
evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence
against the Accused were put to them under Section 313(1)(b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused denied the same as false and
stated that they have witnesses to examine on their side. However, no
witness was examined on the side of the defence, and the defence
evidence was closed.
__________
Page  4  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
9. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court found A1 and A2
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each in
default each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the
offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced each to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
each in default each to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for
the offence under Section 306 IPC. However, they were acquitted of the
charges under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. A3 and A4 were acquitted of all the charges
framed against them under Sections 498-A, 306 and 406 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 and
A2 preferred the present appeal. Pending the appeal, the Second
Appellant, Kamayee, died on 05.02.2024, and consequently, the appeal
stood abated insofar as A2 is concerned. The present appeal is pressed
only by A1/First Appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the State were
__________
Page  5  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
heard. The Trial Court records were called for and perused.
12. Point for Determination:-
Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against
the First Appellant is sustainable?
Answer :-
13. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is the case
of the prosecution that the deceased, Tamilselvi, was the daughter of
P.W.1 Dharmarajan, and that A1, the First Appellant, was her husband.
A2 and A3 are the parents of A1, while A4 is his elder brother. The
deceased was given in marriage to A1 ten years prior to the occurrence.
At the time of marriage, her parents gave her 37 sovereigns of gold
jewellery and household articles worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. In the
wedlock, one female child and two male children were born. Three years
prior to the occurrence, at the time of the ear-boring ceremony, PW1 gave
Rs.50,000/- in cash and articles worth Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged
that A1 to A4 sold the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased and
demanded her to bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her father as dowry,
threatening her that otherwise she could leave the home and die.
14. According to the prosecution, due to the mental torture
__________
Page  6  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
inflicted by the Accused, the deceased attempted to commit suicide on
15.02.2010. Thereafter, on 18.02.2010, she lodged a complaint against all
the Accused before the All Women Police Station, Usilampatti. On
25.02.2010, the police enquired into the matter in the presence of both
parties, attempted to resolve the dispute and directed them to appear on
another day.
15. It is further alleged that on 25.02.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., all
the Accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to
harassment over the demand for dowry. Consequently, the deceased
committed suicide by consuming phenobarbitone poison. Thus, according
to the prosecution, the actions of the Accused are punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. To substantiate its case, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
16. As stated supra, the Trial Court found A1, the First Appellant,
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Neither the victim nor the State has preferred an appeal
against the order of acquittal.
__________
Page  7  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
17. Now, the question is whether the conviction and sentence
imposed on the First Appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are sustainable.
18. On careful perusal of the evidence projected on the side of the
prosecution, it is found that Dharmarajan, the father of the deceased
Tamilselvi, who set the criminal law in motion, was examined as P.W.1.
He, in his evidence, deposed that he was residing at Bodhikulam, near
Usilampatti, and was engaged in agriculture. He has two daughters. His
elder daughter, Tamilselvi, was married to the First Appellant herein ten
years prior to her death. The family of the First Appellant owned an old
rice mill and agricultural land. At the time of the marriage, he had given
37 sovereigns of gold jewellery and household articles worth about
Rs.1,00,000/-. In the wedlock, they had three children, their elder
daughter, Harini, and two sons, Lokesh and Vignesh.
19. PW1 further deposed that for about four or five years after the
marriage, the deceased and the Accused lived together as a joint family.
The Fourth Accused was residing nearby until her death. The deceased
lived in the joint family along with Accused Nos.1 to 3. They lived
happily for about ten years. When the children underwent the ear-boring
__________
Page  8  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
ceremony, P.W.1 offered gift worth Rs.50,000/- and a cash gift of
Rs.50,000/-.
20. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, Accused Nos.2 and 3
constructed a house for their two sons near the rice mill. The 37
sovereigns of gold jewellery given to the deceased at the time of her
marriage were sold for the purpose of constructing the house. The cash
given as a gift was also utilised for the said purpose. When the deceased
demanded to return her jewellery, the Accused refused to return it.
Further, as there was no male heir in the deceased's family, the Accused
demanded to bring her share in her father's property and subjected her to
assault and harassment. The deceased informed P.W.1 about the same
over the phone.
21. PW1 further deposed that he sent his co-brother, Maharajan
and one Sekar, a resident of his village, to negotiate with the family of the
Accused. Through them, P.W.1 informed the Accused and asked them to
wait for a few days and that he would give them Rs.1,00,000/- within a
month. He also asked his daughter to remain there.
22. PW1 further deposed that on 15.02.2010, the deceased
consumed poison. One Petchi, admitted her in the hospital. His grand
__________
Page  9  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
daughter, Harini, aged about 9 years and studying in the fourth standard,
informed P.W.1 about the incident after returning from school. When
P.W.1 visited his daughter at the hospital and enquired why she had
consumed poison, she told him that she could not live with the Accused,
that they were harassing her, and that it was better to die.
23. PW1 further deposed that on 17.02.2010, the deceased was
discharged from the hospital and returned to the house of the Accused.
On 18.02.2010, the Accused picked a quarrel with her and abused her,
stating that she had degraded them by consuming poison. They also
questioned her as to why she had survived.
24. PW1 further deposed that on 18.02.2010, the deceased had
lodged a complaint at the All Women Police Station, Usilampatti. On
18.02.2010, she had informed P.W.1 that she would not return to her
matrimonial home and would commit suicide, as the Accused were
demanding money and partition of the property and were subjecting her
to harassment. At about 5.00 p.m., P.W.1 compromised her by saying that
she has three children and asked her to return to her matrimonial home.
He assured her that he would partition the property and give her an equal
share. On 18.02.2010, she returned to her matrimonial home.
__________
Page  10  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
25. PW1 further deposed that on 25.02.2010, the deceased again
consumed poison. She was brought to the hospital by a 108 ambulance at
about 5.30 p.m., one Mokkamayan of Nalluthevanpatti informed P.W.1
about the incident. P.W.1 and his wife went to the hospital and enquired
of their daughter why she had consumed poison again, despite they
sought one month time. They also told her that, if she was unable to live
with the Accused, she could have come to their house.
26. PW1 further deposed that the deceased told them that she
could not live with the Accused. She further stated that all the four
Accused had assaulted her and told her to leave, stating that, as her
parents were young, they would not partition the property and therefore
asked her to die instead. She also stated that the Accused continued to
demand money and partition of the property, despite 37 sovereigns of
gold jewellery, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and household articles already
having been given at the time of marriage. They told her to obtain her
share in the property and return, failing which she should not live with
them. They also showed her the poison used for agricultural purposes and
asked her to consume it.
27. PW1 further deposed that the deceased was forwarded to the
Government Hospital, Madurai, on 25.02.2010 for further treatment and
__________
Page  11  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
was taken there at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. On 27.02.2010, at about 10.00
or 10.30 a.m., she died. None of the Accused came to see her. P.W.1
lodged Ex.P1 complaint at the Usilampatti Police Station.
28. P.W.1 further deposed that his elder grand daughter, Harini,
and the younger grandson, Vignesh, were brought up by him, while the
other grandson, Yogesh, was brought up by the Accused. After coming
out of prison, the First Appellant went to the school where his grand
daughter, was studying in the fourth standard. He threatened to kill her in
the same manner as her mother and asked her to come with him. He also
stated that, if she remained at her grandmother's house, they would
demand the return of the cash and 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery. The
Accused allegedly assaulted his grand daughter and told her that, if she
accompanied them, they could get the property back. The grand daughter
informed P.W.1 about the incident. In this regard, a complaint was lodged
before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, and the same is
pending adjudication.
29. Jeyamani, the mother of the deceased, was examined as P.W.2.
She deposed that she was born along with two elder sisters and one
younger sister. Her elder sister died within seven days of giving birth, and
the child was brought up in their family. The deceased's husband was
__________
Page  12  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
P.W.2's maternal uncle and, therefore, the deceased was married to her
maternal uncle, who was also her brother-in-law.
30. PW2 further deposed that the deceased was married to the First
Accused, who is the Appellant herein, ten years prior to her death. At the
time of the marriage, 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery and household
articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given as dowry. Five years later, the
ear-boring ceremony of the children was conducted, during which each
child was given a half-sovereign gold stud, and a cash gift of Rs.50,000/-
was also given.
31. P.W.2 further deposed that the Accused subjected her daughter
to severe harassment. They demanded a share in the property belonging
to the deceased's parents and stated that they could not wait until her
parents die. The deceased informed P.W.2 about these demands over
phone.
32. PW2 further deposed that the Accused did not even provide a
salt for the deceased to cook food and did not purchase the necessary
household articles for her. P.W.2 used to purchase the required household
articles and send them to her daughter through an auto.
__________
Page  13  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
33. PW2 further deposed that her grand daughter and grandson
were admitted to Jayaseelan School, Usilampatti. As the school fees had
not been paid, the children were not permitted to write their
examinations. Her daughter wept and informed P.W.2 about the same.
P.W.2 paid Rs.17,000/- and brought the children to her house, where they
stayed for about one month without sending them to school to see
whether the Accused were sending the children to school. However, the
Accused did not send them to school. Thereafter, P.W.2 admitted her
grand daughter and grandson to another school at Usilampatti and send
them to school from her house. After one year, the Accused took back
only the grandson, while the grand daughter refused to return to them.
34. PW2 further deposed that when her grand daughter was
studying from the house of P.W.2, she used to purchase the necessary
household articles every Saturday and send them through her grand
daughter. She also used to give Rs.300/- towards her daughter's expenses.
Whenever P.W.2 sent her daughter back, she arranged for her to travel
safely by auto. However, the Accused would sent her back by bus. When
P.W.2 questioned her daughter about this, the deceased would state that
she did not have sufficient money to send her back by auto.
35. PW2 further deposed that prior to her death, in Tamil month of
__________
Page  14  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
th
‘Thai’, on 20 , the deceased called P.W.2 over phone in the morning and
informed her that the gold jewellery given to her had already been
emptied and that the remaining seven sovereign of jewellery were in
mortgage. She further stated that she intended to obtain a loan of
Rs.20,000/- from a women self-help group to redeem the said jewellery.
She had paid the money on Saturday and was expecting the jewellery to
be returned the following day. She told P.W.2 that she would come on the
next day. However, when the deceased did not arrive on Sunday, P.W.2
called her, but her mobile phone was switched off and did not receive any
call until 6.00 p.m.
36. PW2 further deposed that five days later, on the following
Saturday, P.W.2 sent her grand daughter by auto to enquire about the
condition of her mother. Her grand daughter reached the village after 1 ½
hours and subsequently informed her that her mother had consumed
poison. The deceased had been admitted in the hospital for about five
days and had been discharged on that day.
37. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, she sent her elder sister's
husband, Maharajan and Sekar to enquire into the matter. P.W.2 and her
husband did not go directly to the house of the Accused because they
apprehended that the Accused would quarrel with them. When Maharajan
__________
Page  15  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
and Sekar questioned the Accused as to why they had not informed the
parents of the deceased about the incident, the Accused allegedly replied
that they would inform them only after burning Tamilselvi.
38. PW2 further deposed that the Accused did not admit the
deceased to the hospital. Instead, a neighbour, Petchi, admitted her. None
of the Accused visited the deceased while she was undergoing treatment
in the hospital.
39. PW2 further deposed that when Maharajan and Sekar
questioned the deceased as to why she had consumed poison, she replied
that she had gone to redeem the jewellery on Sunday and that her
husband and father-in-law asked her not to come to the pawn shop to
redeem the jewels and requested the pawn shop peoples to hand over the
jewels to them. Accordingly, her daughter informed the pawnshop
peoples to hand over the jewels to her husband and father-in-law. They
went to the pawnshop, received the jewels, took them to Madurai and
sold them. Her daughter waited until 6.00 p.m. for them to return with the
jewels and then contacted them over the phone. They informed her that
they would hand over the jewels to her. At around 7.30 p.m., they
returned. When she questioned them about the jewels, they scolded her,
asking why she needed the jewels, and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in cash
__________
Page  16  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
and property. Since she did not bring the cash and property, they had sold
the jewels. They assaulted her and drove her out of the house. Therefore,
she consumed poison.
40. PW2 further deposed that Maharajan and Sekar informed the
Accused that they would pay Rs.1,00,000/- after six months and asked
them to return by 4.00 p.m. After they left, the Accused scolded her,
stating, "Why did you come alive? We asked you to die. You consumed
poison only for that reason. That is why we have not come to meet you in
the hospital. Go and die or bring property." On the next day, her daughter
took her three children to the All Women Police Station, Usilampatti and
lodged a complaint. After lodging the complaint, she contacted her
mother and informed her about the same. She stated that she could not
live with them and had therefore lodged the complaint, and asked her
mother to come. Accordingly, she and her husband went to the police
station.
41. PW2 further deposed that the police enquired with the
Accused, who promised to return 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery within
a week. After one week, they again went to the police station. As the
Accused claimed that they had no money and had children to take care of,
the police pacified the parties, compromised them and sent them back. On
__________
Page  17  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
the same day, at around 5.30 hours, a relative of her daughter from
Nallathevanpatti called and informed her that her daughter had consumed
poison and that nobody was present in the house. She called the 108
ambulance and requested them to take her daughter to the Government
Hospital, Usilampatti. Accordingly, they went to the Government
Hospital, Usilampatti, where her daughter was brought by a 108
ambulance.
42. PW2 further deposed that she asked her daughter why she had
consumed poison again. Her daughter informed her that the Accused had
scolded the deceased, stating that by lodging a complaint with the police,
she had brought disrepute to them and that she should not be allowed to
live. They had kept poison and asked her to consume it and die. They had
locked the doors and left the place. Consequently, she consumed poison.
43. PW2 further deposed that as her condition became serious at
the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, she was forwarded to the
Government Hospital, Madurai. Despite receiving treatment for two days,
she died. While she was in the hospital, her husband lodged a complaint
with the Usilampatti Town Police Station.
44. PW2 further deposed that after obtaining bail, the Accused
__________
Page  18  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
went to the school where her grand daughter was studying and threatened
her, stating that if she went to the house of her maternal grandfather, they
would kill her just as they had killed her mother. They further stated that
only if she came to their house, they could claim a share in the property.
They also assaulted her. Her grand daughter informed her about the
incident over phone. As her husband was not at the station, after two
days, they went to the school, and enquired about the said incident and
lodged a complaint. The said case is pending before the Usilampatti
Court.
45. P.W.3 Maharajan deposed that P.W.2 was his sister-in-law.
The First Accused married the daughter of P.W.1 in the year 2000. At the
time of marriage, 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery and household articles
were given. Three children were born in the wedlock. Thereafter, the ear-
boring ceremony for two children were conducted. P.W.1 gave Gift
articles worth about Rs.50,000/- and a cash gift of Rs.50,000/-. During
the ear-boring ceremony, cash gifts to the tune of Rs.50,000/- were given.
The appellant spent the said amount and demanded a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- from P.W.1 through Tamilselvi.
46. P.W.3 Maharajan further deposed that Tamilselvi came to her
father's house. P.W.1 called P.W.3 and informed him about the same. He
__________
Page  19  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
and Sekar convinced the deceased, assuring her that they would arrange
the money and send it to her, and thereafter sent her back to her
matrimonial home. Tamilselvi consumed poison after her husband
assaulted her and scolded her for returning home without bringing the
money.
47. P.W.3 Maharajan further deposed that even after three days,
she had consumed poison. They did not know about the said occurrence.
When she had gone to Usilampatti casually. A person from the accused
native place informed him that his co-brother's daughter had consumed
poison. On receiving the information, he went to Nallathevanpatti, the
village where Tamilselvi resided and questioned the First Accused as to
why he had not informed them that Tamilselvi had consumed poison for
three days. The Accused replied that he had thought of informing them
only after her death.
48. P.W.3 Maharajan further deposed that at that time, Tamilselvi
was in her husband's house. He informed her that he would give her the
money once it was arranged and left her there. On the next day,
Tamilselvi lodged a complaint at the All Women Police Station. On
coming to know of the same, he, his co-brother and Sekar went to the
police station. The police advised Tamilselvi not to lodge a complaint
__________
Page  20  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
against her husband and to withdraw the complaint and to return to her
matrimonial home.
49. P.W.3 Maharajan further deposed that when she returned
home, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law
assaulted her, questioning how she could lodge a complaint against them
at the police station and why she had returned without getting the money.
Consequently, Tamilselvi consumed poison again on the next day. She
was initially taken to the Usilampatti Hospital and thereafter shifted to the
Madurai Hospital. P.W.2 informed him about the same. Despite intensive
treatment, Tamilselvi died after three days. The Accused did not attend
her cremation. After her death, P.W.1 has been bringing up the two
children.
50. P.W.4 Singam deposed in line with the evidence of P.W.3.
However, he stated that he did not know why Tamilselvi had consumed
poison and died. P.W.5 Petchi did not support the case of the prosecution
and was treated as hostile by the prosecution.
51. P.W.6 Panju, in her evidence, deposed that Tamilselvi, the
daughter of P.W.1, was married to the First Accused. She used to work at
the house of P.W.1. At the time of marriage, 37 sovereigns of gold
__________
Page  21  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
jewellery were given. During the ear-boring ceremony, Rs.50,000/- was
given as a gift. Thirty-one baskets of rice were also given. Tamilselvi
frequently visited her father's house. When P.W.6 questioned her about
the same, Tamilselvi informed her that she had come to obtain
Rs.1,00,000/-. She returned to her matrimonial home on the next day.
52. When P.W.6 went to Usilampatti to grind spices, Petchi
informed her that Tamilselvi had consumed poison and had been
admitted in the hospital. P.W.6 went to the hospital and saw her. At that
time, no one from either side was present. Petchiammal informed her
about the incident, but P.W.6 did not know when Selvi had consumed
poison.
53. PW6 further deposed that after some time, Selvi's parents
arrived. P.W.6 questioned Selvi as to why there were frequent quarrels.
Selvi informed her that her husband was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and
picking quarrels with her. After the parents of the deceased arrived,
P.W.6 left the hospital.
54. PW6 further deposed that after two days, Selvi was discharged,
and a panchayat was convened at Boothipuram. During the panchayat,
they assured the deceased that the money would be paid within two or
__________
Page  22  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
three days and sent her back along with her children. After one week,
P.W.6 came to know that Selvi had consumed poison again. She went to
Madurai where Selvi died.
55. P.W.7 Mokkamayan, deposed that Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
his uncles. He also deposed in line with P.W.1. Further, he stated that the
police came to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 Observation
Mahazar, in his presence. He identified his signature in the observation
mahazar.
56. P.W.8 Dr.Purushothaman, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased, deposed that the viscera of the
deceased was collected and forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. The forensic report revealed that the deceased had consumed
Phenobarbitone. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P3 opinion, stating that the
deceased would have died due to the effect of poisoning. The post-
mortem report was marked as Ex.P4.
57. P.W.9 Shanti, the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Usilampatti, deposed that on 18.02.2010, while she was in charge
of the said police station, the deceased Tamilselvi appeared along with
her parents and lodged a complaint stating that, despite spending of 37
__________
Page  23  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.50,000/-, her husband's family
members were demanding a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complaint
further stated that she had consumed poison on 15.02.2010.
58. P.W.9 recorded the same in Community Service Register
(CSR) on 25.02.2010 and conducted preliminary enquiry. During the
preliminary enquiry, she found that the jewels and cash given to the
deceased had been spent by her husband's family. The family members of
her husband agreed to convey half of the rice mill and the house in her
favour. The parents of the said girl accepted the proposal and arrived at a
compromise. P.W.9 instructed them to appear before the police station on
01.03.2010. However, they did not return. Even before that date, the
Usilampatti Town Police informed her that the deceased had consumed
poison and died due to harassment and the demand for money by her
husband's family members.
59. P.W.10 Senthilkumar received complaint from P.W.1 and
registered Ex.P5 First Information Report. P.W.11 Dhanabal and
P.W.15.Jayaraman are the investigating officers. They deposed about the
investigation conducted by them. P.W.12 Dharmar, the post-mortem
constable, identified the body of the deceased for post-mortem
examination and thereafter handed over the body and its belongings to
__________
Page  24  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
her relatives. P.W.13 Thenammal deposed in line with the evidence of
P.W.6 Panju.
60. P.W.14 Harini, the daughter of the deceased, deposed that she
and her brother Lokesh were studying in the First Standard and LKG,
respectively, at Jayaseelan Matriculation School. The First Accused
refused to pay their school fees. Consequently, their grandmother paid the
fees and ensured that they continued their education. Their grandmother
admitted P.W.14 in the Second Standard and her brother in the First
Standard at Nadar School. Their grandmother took good care of them.
61. PW14 further deposed that every Sunday, P.W.14 used to visit
her mother at Nallathevanpatti. As her mother was facing difficulties, her
grandmother used to give her money for the visits and she would travel
by auto. Whenever she visited her mother's house, her paternal
grandmother would pick quarrels with her. She would also scold P.W.14
and her mother for not bringing the property and ask them to go and die.
62. PW14 further deposed that on one occasion, while P.W.14 was
playing and writing on the gate, her paternal grandmother poured hot
water on her. Her father had also assaulted her mother with a piece of
firewood, causing an injury on her forehead. Thereafter, P.W.14 went to
__________
Page  25  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
her grandmother's house.
63. PW14 further deposed that when P.W.14 was studying in the
Fourth Standard, she again visited her mother's house. At that time, her
paternal grandmother, Kamayee, picked up quarrel with her mother and
asked her to die. Her brother informed her that the quarrel was related to
the jewels, and she conveyed the same to her maternal grandmother.
64. PW14 further deposed that her brother subsequently informed
her that their mother had consumed poison. P.W.14 stated that she would
inform her family about the same. Her father, however, claimed that her
mother had not consumed poison. P.W.14 and her maternal grandmother
went to the hospital, where one Petchi had accompanied her mother.
65. PW14 further deposed that the Accused told her mother that
she could return only after obtaining a share in the property; otherwise,
she should consume poison and die. After two days, her mother was
returned home. She went to school. Her mother and grandmother
informed her that they were going to the police station. One person came
to the school to take her. At the All Women Police Station, a quarrel was
going on and she was standing outside. At that time, her mother informed
her that she would bring her another brother, as the Accused would not
__________
Page  26  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
take care of him.
66. While she was standing at the bus stop, she received
information that her mother had consumed poison and was being taken to
the hospital by ambulance. They went to the Government Hospital,
Usilampatti. She asked her mother why she had consumed poison. Her
mother informed her that the Accused had asked her to consume poison
and die and that she had therefore consumed it. Thereafter, her mother
became unconscious and was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai. She also accompanied her mother. Her mother was admitted to
the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where she was given treatment. However,
she died after two days. The Accused did not come to see her. The
villagers of Nallathevanpatti quarrelled with them while they were in the
hospital.
67. PW14 further deposed that Forty-five days after her mother's
death, her father and senior paternal uncle came to the school. They
threatened to kill her just as they had killed her mother, asked her to come
to their house and assaulted her. She informed her teachers and family
members about the incident. She is now living with her maternal
grandparents.
__________
Page  27  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
68. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3,
P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.13 and P.W.14, it is found that the deceased,
Tamilselvi, was married to the First Accused in the year 2000. At the
time of marriage, 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery and household articles
worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given to her. Further, during the ear-boring
ceremonies of two children, gold studs worth about Rs.50,000/- and a
cash gift of Rs.50,000/- were given.
69. The Accused reconstructed the house near their rice mill for
the residence of both brothers. They sold all the 37 sovereigns of gold
jewellery given to the deceased at the time of marriage and demanded a
further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Further, as the parents of
the deceased had only two daughters, the Accused demanded that their
property be partitioned during their lifetime and that the share of the
deceased Tamilselvi be given to her.
70. In this connection, frequent quarrels arose between the
Accused and the deceased, and she was often driven out of her
matrimonial home and sent to her parental home. On one such occasion,
on 15.02.2010, the deceased was unable to bear the torture inflicted by
the Accused in connection with their demand for money and consumed
poison. She was admitted in the hospital by P.W.5 Petchi, [though P.W.5
__________
Page  28  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
did not support this fact in her evidence, all the other witnesses deposed
that P.W.5 Petchi had admitted the deceased in the hospital.]
71. The Accused did not visit the deceased while she was
undergoing treatment. After being discharged from the hospital on
18.02.2010, the deceased Tamilselvi lodged a complaint with P.W.9
Shanti, the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Usilampatti. In this connection, P.W.9 conducted an enquiry on
25.02.2010. During the enquiry, the Accused agreed to give half of the
rice mill and the house to the deceased. P.W.9 instructed the parties to
appear for further enquiry on 01.03.2010.
72. However, on 25.02.2010 itself, the deceased consumed poison
once again. She was admitted to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti,
and was thereafter shifted to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
Despite treatment, she died on 27.02.2010.
73. P.W.8 Dr.Purushothaman, conducted the post-mortem
examination. The viscera of the deceased was collected and forwarded to
the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory report
revealed that the deceased had consumed Phenobarbitone poison.
Accordingly, the doctor opined that the deceased had died due to
__________
Page  29  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
complications arising from the consumption of poison.
74. The question that arises for consideration is whether the death
of the deceased was caused by the abetment of the appellant?
75. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.2 reveals that a relative of
her daughter contacted P.W.7 from Nallathevanpatti and informed him
that the deceased had again consumed poison and had been taken to the
Government Hospital, Usilampatti. P.W.2 rushed to the hospital and
questioned the deceased as to why she had consumed poison. The
deceased informed her that the Accused had scolded her for lodging a
complaint against them, stating that she had brought disrepute to them
and, therefore, insisted them that she should not live. They had placed
poison before her and asked her to consume it and die. They had then
locked the doors and left the house. Consequently, she consumed the
poison.
76. The said evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of
P.W.14 Harini. When P.W.14 questioned her mother as to why she had
consumed poison, her mother disclosed that the Accused had induced her
to consume poison and die and that she had consumed it.
77. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that
__________
Page  30  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
the Accused continuously harassed the deceased by demanding money
after selling the 37 sovereigns of gold jewellery given to her at the time
of marriage. They also demanded that her parents' property be
partitioned. Unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased consumed
poison on 15.02.2010. However, the Accused did not take care of her or
make arrangements for her treatment.
78. On 18.02.2010, the deceased lodged a complaint with the
police, and an enquiry was conducted on 25.02.2010. After returning
home, the Accused again quarrelled with the deceased and placed poison
before her, asked her to consume it and die. Induced by that provoked by
their conduct and unable to bear the continuous harassment, the deceased
took the extreme step of ending her life by consuming poison.
79. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.14 regarding the statements
made by the deceased to them concerning the circumstances in which she
consumed poison constitutes a dying declaration within the meaning of
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the
circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly indicate the guilt of the
appellant.
80. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
__________
Page  31  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
the earlier complaint lodged in this case had been suppressed by the
prosecution. The learned counsel relied upon the cross-examination of
P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted that, on 18.02.2010, his daughter had lodged a
complaint at the All Women Police Station, Usilampatti. The said
complaint was allegedly suppressed by the prosecution.
81. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that, on 15.02.2010, he, his wife
and his daughter had gone to the police station and lodged a complaint in
the presence of the Head Constable. P.W.2 also admitted in her cross-
examination that, at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, a Head
Constable had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and reduced their statements
to writing, in which her husband had signed.
82. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
P.W.2, in her cross-examination, admitted that, on the date of the death of
the deceased, at around 12.00 hours, the Inspector of Police and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the hospital, conducted an
enquiry, reduced her statement to writing and obtained her signature.
Similarly, they recorded the statement of her husband and obtained his
signature. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant,
the prosecution had suppressed the original information and subsequently
__________
Page  32  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
fabricated Ex.P1 complaint belatedly to suit the prosecution case. Hence,
the learned counsel contended that the said complaint could not be given
any credence.
83. However, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is
found that, on 18.02.2010, the deceased lodged a complaint at the All
Women Police Station, Usilampatti. P.W.9 has also deposed about the
same. At the time of lodging the complaint, P.W.1 and P.W.2
accompanied the deceased. P.W.1 has spoken about the said complaint
only. Though it was not produced before the Trial Court. P.W.9 has
deposed about the receipt of the complaint, its entry in the Community
Service Register and the preliminary enquiry conducted on the said
complaint. Therefore, though the complaint lodged by the deceased was
not produced before the Trial Court, in view of the evidence of P.W.9, the
lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not producing the said
complaint would not, by itself, affect the case of the prosecution.
84. Further, though P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated in their cross-
examination submitted that they had given statements which were
reduced to writing and signed by them, they had not stated so in their
statements recorded by the investigating officer. It appears that, due to a
lapse of memory, they deposed that they had signed the statements.
__________
Page  33  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the person making a
statement to the police during investigation from signing such a
statement. Therefore, the answers given by the witnesses in this regard
cannot be given much credence. Hence, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the original information had not been
produced is not factully correct.
85. Further, the Trial Court relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Hema vs State Tr.Insp.of Police , reported in (10) SCC 192 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“Further, even if there had been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions etc., it is the obligation on
the part of the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de
hors such lapses to find out whether the said evidence is
reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the object of
finding out the truth.”
86. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court cited supra, even though there are the lapses on the part of the
investigating agency, such lapses would not, by themselves, affect the
case of the prosecution.
87. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
the deceased died on 25.02.2010, whereas the First Information Report
was registered only on 27.02.2010, and that there was, a delay in
__________
Page  34  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
registering the First Information Report. However, on a careful perusal of
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is found that the deceased
consumed poison on 25.02.2010 but died only on 27.02.2010. P.W.1
lodged the complaint with the police only after her death. When the
deceased was undergoing treatment in a serious condition, it cannot
reasonably be expected that P.W.1 and P.W.2, being her parents, would
leave her at the hospital and rush to the police station to lodge a
complaint. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the date in Ex.P1 complaint had been altered from 28.02.2010 to
27.02.2010, on a careful perusal of Ex.P1, it is found that the complaint
reached the police on 27.02.2010 itself. Therefore, the said error in the
date appears to be a clerical error in recording the date.
88. Further, on a careful perusal of Ex.P5, the First Information
Report, it is found that the learned Magistrate made an endorsement
stating that the First Information Report, along with the original
complaint, was received at 1.25 p.m. on 27.02.2010. Therefore, it is clear
that the First Information Report was registered on 27.02.2010 itself, and
there is no doubt regarding the date of its registration.
89. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
the deceased was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti,
__________
Page  35  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
for treatment and was thereafter referred to the Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai. However, the prosecution had neither produced the
Accident Register maintained at the Government Hospital, Usilampatti,
nor examined any Doctor from the said hospital. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel for the appellant, the information furnished to the
Doctor at the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, had been suppressed by
the prosecution.
90. It is true that the deceased was initially taken to the
Government Hospital, Usilampatti, and thereafter shifted to the
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, the evidence discloses
that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Therefore, it is not clear
from the evidence whether an Accident Register was registered at the
Government Hospital, Usilampatti. In the absence of any concrete
evidence to show that the deceased was admitted in Usilampatti Hospital
and the Accident Register prepared by the Doctor at the Government
Hospital, Usilampatti, the non-production of the Accident Register will
not affect the case of the prosecution, as it cannot be expected from the
prosecution to produce a document which is not in existence at all.
91. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant further contended
that, though the deceased was undergoing treatment for about two days,
__________
Page  36  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
no dying declaration was recorded. However, from the evidence of
P.W.1, it is found that the deceased became unconscious and did not
regain consciousness before her death. In the absence of any evidence to
show that the deceased regained consciousness before her death, the non-
recording of a dying declaration cannot be put against the prosecution.
92. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
there was no instigation, inducement or intentional aid on the part of the
appellant to abet the suicide of the deceased. No specific dates or
instances of harassment were stated by the prosecution witnesses, and the
allegations were omnibus in nature. The deceased had already attempted
to commit suicide and, therefore, had a suicidal tendency. She had
consumed jaundice syrup and attempted to commit suicide. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution had
failed to prove the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 , to say that a
mere statement asking a person to die would not constitute intentional
instigation. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted
herein below:
“12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have
__________
Page  37  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the
deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on
th
25 July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used
abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and
die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan,
brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the
appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and
abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan,
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to
this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not
stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked
him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not
constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate'
denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is
the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge
that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger
and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have
th
been told to the deceased were on 25 July, 1998 ensued by quarrel.
th
The deceased was found hanging on 27 July, 1998. Assuming that
the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had
enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by
th
the appellant on 25 July, 1998 drived the deceased to commit
th
suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27 July, 1998 is not proximate
th
to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25 July, 1998.
th
The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27 July, 1998
would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the
th
quarrel taken place on 25 July, 1998 when it is alleged that the
appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased
to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.”
93. The learned counsel further relied upon the decision of this
Court in P.Selvam v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police,
Thavamangalam, rendered in Crl.A.No.672 of 2017 , dated 29.02.2024,
particularly Paragraph Nos. 20, 25, 28 and 29, which is extracted herein
below:
__________
Page  38  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
“20. It is also discernible from the evidence of P.W.1 that his
daughter’s phone number was collected from him and no call detail
records of the deceased Sumitha and himself were collected and
marked. No doubt had the call detail records been marked, it would
lend some support in strengthening the prosecution case. Since
because the said details were not marked by the prosecution, the
cogent evidence of father, mother and brother of the deceased
cannot be thrown out. I find no force in the arguments of learned
Senior counsel for the appellant.
25. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2002 (Crl.) L.J.2796 it has been observed by
the Apex Court that the accused told the other person ' to go and
die'. It was held that this would not satisfy the ingredients of
inducement. Inducement has to be with mens rea. The suicide was
committed two days after the quarrel between the accused and the
deceased. This also showed that the suicide was not the direct
result of the quarrel. The suicide note indicated that her husband
was a frustrated man and given to drinking and suffered from
great stress and depression.
28. No other evidence of physical or mental torture was alleged. It
is the evidence of P.W.3 Suresh, brother of the deceased Sumitha
that all the jewels that were gifted to Sumitha were pledged by the
accused. It is also inferable from the evidence of P.W.1 father of the
deceased that the vehicle which was purchased through financier
was taken away by them, obviously because of non-payment of the
dues. Adding to that he was under intoxication, assaulted her and
demanded her to remove her gold Thaali chain. Whether this one
commission is sufficient to bring home the offence u/s.306 of I.P.C.
It is not the case of the prosecution that before 31.12.2012, the
accused tortured her either for dowry or for any other thing.
29. When that be the case, as she was brought up by P.W.1 in a
better way with so much of dreams and expectations got married her
fiance, but contrary to her expectation they had financial crisis and
the deceased had lost charm in her life with her husband and she
committed suicide. It would dangerous to conclude that the
utterance of accused would amount to cruelty or could come in the
mischief of abetment from commission of the suicide. There was no
evidence of any other act of cruelty and the abetment by her
husband could not be inferred. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
the conviction of accused u/s.306 of I.P.C. is not possible.
__________
Page  39  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
Therefore, based on the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the
view that the charges u/s.498 A and 306 of I.P.C are not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is ordered to be acquitted
u/s.235(1) of I.P.C.”
94. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Thameem
Ansari v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Guindy, rendered
in Crl.A.No. 339 of 2022, dated 24.02.2026, particularly Paragraph Nos.
25 and 29 of the said judgment which is extracted herein below:
“25. From the above evidences on record, there is no material to
prove or establish the role of the accused in driving the deceased to
commit suicide with an intention. Moreover, none of these evidences
suggest that there had been any live link between the harassment as
alleged to have been committed by the appellant, prior in point of
time which is at least one week earlier and the suicide committed by
the deceased.
29. In the absence of any mens rea proved on the part of the
accused in instigating the deceased to commit suicide and due to
such an abetment, the deceased was left with no other option except
to commit suicide, the charge under Section 306 IPC as against the
appellant cannot be sustained. On reappraisal of the entire facts and
materials on record, this Court finds that the findings arrived at by
the trial court suffer from serious perversity and illegality. In view of
the above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court
cannot be sustained and needs to be interfered with.”
95. Further, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2020) 10 SCC
200 , to say, no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s
side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not
indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband.
Therefore, the conviction is reversed. He relied upon Paragraph Nos.17
__________
Page  40  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
and 18 of the said judgment.
“17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu
Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma
writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of
Section
306 IPC in the following terms:
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It
is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the 2 (2010) 1
SCC 707 time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, which again was
a case of wife’s unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench,
Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan rightly observed as under:-
“24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the
High Court that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted
to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various
reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in
love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on
and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court
that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by
someone else, is a perverse reasoning.”
__________
Page  41  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
96. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750 , to say,
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The learned counsel relied upon
Paragraph Nos.12, 14 and 15 of the said judgment and they are extracted
herein below:
“12. Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of
this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618. A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a
case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife,
the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish
and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant
Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has
examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20
reads as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except
to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
14. The Court in the instant case came to the conclusion that there is
no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference
of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by
__________
Page  42  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
Seema may necessarily be drawn.
15. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive
to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our
day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the
other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
97. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay
Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh , reported in 2026 INSC 948 , to
contend that mere harassment, by itself, would not constitute cruelty. He
relied upon Paragraph Nos. 11, 15 and 16 of the said judgment.
“11. The Sessions Court considered all this evidence in detail. It
noted that the allegations of demand of money or asking the victim to
take loan were afterthought allegations. It noted that no witness had
deposed that the victim was ever threatened with any consequences,
whatsoever. There was no evidence at all of any unlawful demand.
Mere harassment by itself could not be treated to be cruelty. In fact, it
was noted that the victim was treated affectionately by the accused
when she was pregnant and also after delivering a child. On that
basis, the Sessions Court proceeded to acquit all the accused from the
aforesaid charges. It is to be noted that the learned Judge had the
occasion to note the demeanour of all the witnesses while recording
their evidence.
15. It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord in
the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim. That, however,
would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of Section
306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code. In fact, there is no
evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment by the
appellant. On the contrary, it has been brought on record that the
appellant, on realising that the victim had ingested some liquid
thinking it to be a medicine, had immediately sought medical aid from
PW10. He also shifted the victim immediately to the hospital.
16. Thus, on considering the entire evidence on record, it is clear that
the Sessions Court was justified in arriving at the correct conclusion
that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court committed an
error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant. Its judgment is, thus,
liable to be set aside.”
__________
Page  43  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018

98. Further, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2024) 4
SCC 633, to say that, the prosecution must prove the mens rea behind the
abetment. The relevant Paragraphs of the said decisions extracted herein
below:
“8. Thus, an analysis of the provisions under Section 306, IPC with
reference to abetment as contemplated under Section 107, IPC and
the decisions in M. Mohan’s case (supra) and Madan Mohan Singh’s
case (supra) would reveal that while considering the question as to
whether a person can be convicted under Section 306, IPC or
whether a conviction thereunder could be sustained, one has to
consider the mens rea of the accused/convict to bring about suicide of
the victim. Needless to say, that it requires an active act or direct act
which led the victim to commit suicide seeing no option; and in other
words, the act must have been of such a degree intending to push the
deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. Bearing
in mind the aforesaid position, we will analyse the case of the
prosecution and the evidence on record to find out whether the
prosecution had succeeded in bringing conviction to the appellant
under Section 306, IPC.
19. In the contextual situation, in view of the analysis of the
provisions under Section 306, IPC and the decisions referred to
supra, we will also have to consider what is mens rea? ‘Mens rea’
means a guilty mind. As a general rule, every crime requires a mental
element, the nature of which, will depend upon definition of the
particular crime in question. Although it is impossible to ascribe any
particular meaning to the term ‘mens rea’ as the circumstance to
determine the existence of mens rea depends upon the ingredients
constituting the particular offence and the expression used in the
definition of the particular offence to constitute such offence. It is
only appropriate to refer to Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.,
Vol-11, Para-10), going by the same:
“…it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term
‘mens rea’, concepts such as those of intention, recklessness and
knowledge which commonly used as the basis for criminal liability
and in some respects, it may be said to be fundamental to it.
Generally, subject to both qualification and exception, a person is not
__________
Page  44  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
to be made criminally liable for serious crimes unless he intends to
cause or foresees that he will probably cause or at the lowest he may
cause the elements which constitute a crime in question.”
20. In the decision in Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corp. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.4, it was observed that mens rea is a state of mind and
held that under the criminal law mens rea is considered as the “guilty
intention” and unless it is found that the ‘accused’ had the guilty
intention to commit the crime, he could not be held guilty of
committing the crime.
23. We have already noted that though the prosecution got a case that
one Alexander had witnessed the appellant taking the victim and
wrongfully confining him in the said shop, the said Alexander was not
examined by the prosecution. At any rate, the fact is that the
appellant was already acquitted for the offence under Sections 342
and 365, IPC. It is also to be noted that though A-3, Muthu, (the
father of the appellant) was the person to whom PW-3 said to have
handed over the key of his shop, he was acquitted by the trial Court
and no appeal was filed against his acquittal.
24. The impugned judgment would reveal that even after acquitting
the appellant for the offences under Sections 342 & 365, IPC, the
High Court confirmed his conviction under Section 306, IPC, holding
that the appellant had failed to offer explanation as to how the
deceased Senthil Kumar entered into the tailoring Shop of PW-3 to
commit suicide in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
25. We are at a loss to understand as to how Section 106 of the
Evidence Act could be applied in the case on hand against the
appellant in view with facts narrated above. This Section is an
exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101 which casts
burden of proving a fact on the party who substantially asserts the
affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any
person of that duty or burden. On the contrary, it says that when a
fact to be proved, either affirmatively or negatively, is especially
within the knowledge of a person, it is for him to prove it. This
Section, in its application to criminal cases, applies where the
defence of the accused depends on his proving a fact especially within
his knowledge and of nobody else.
26. In short, Section 106 cannot be used to shift the burden of proving
the offence from the prosecution to the accused. It can only when the
prosecution led evidence, which, if believed, will sustain a conviction
or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question of shifting
the onus to prove such fact(s) on the accused would arise. (See the
__________
Page  45  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
decision in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar5).
27. In view of the exposition of law as above and in the absence of
anything to make Section 106 applicable to shift the onus on the
appellant, the High Court had committed an error in applying Section
106 of the Evidence Act, in the instant case.”
99. It is true that, to constitute the offences under Section 306 of
IPC, there should be an intentional instigation or persistent harassment.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals that the
appellant herein persistently demanded that the deceased obtain her share
in her parents' property and also demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
urgently. In this connection, he assaulted the deceased several times and
drove her out of the matrimonial home to her parental home. Two talks
were held: one in the presence of P.W.3 Maharajan and another in the
presence of P.W.9 Shanti, the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Usilampatti with regard to the demand of money by the appellant
herein. The evidence further discloses that the deceased consumed poison
on 15.02.2010 as she was unable to bear the harassment on account of
demand for money. She was admitted to the hospital by P.W.5 Petchi.
None of the Accused, including the appellant herein, visited her while she
was undergoing treatment in the hospital. Immediately after she returned
home after her discharge, the Accused again harassed her by questioning
why she had returned alive and asked her to die so that they could live
peacefully. This prompted her to lodge a complaint before P.W.9 on
__________
Page  46  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
18.02.2010. P.W.9 conducted an enquiry, and on 25.02.2010,
compromise talks were held between the family of the appellant and the
family of the deceased at the police station. During the said talks, the
appellant agreed to give half of the share in the rice mill and the house to
the deceased.
100. However, immediately after returning from the police station,
the Accused again picked up quarrel with the deceased, placed poison
before her and asked her to consume it and die. Thereafter, they left the
house after locking the doors.
101. The sequences of evidence proved by the prosecution
witnesses clearly discloses that the appellant had clear mens rea to
instigate the death of the deceased as she has not brought the money he
demanded from her family. Therefore, the decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the case in hand.
The death of the deceased is the direct result of the actions of the
appellants and the harassment made out by them.
102 . He further contended that P.W.7 was an independent witness
and a neighbour. However, he was inimical towards the Accused. Though
he deposed against the appellant, the Trial Court failed to consider that he
__________
Page  47  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
was an inimical witness and ought to have scrutinised his evidence with
caution. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in Padam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 621 , to say, that the inimical witnesses to be
dealt with scrutiny, care and caution. The relevant Paragraph of the said
judgment is extracted herein below:
“6. Even, if we examine the intrinsic oath of the prosecution
witnesses, who are admittedly inimical, the omissions and
contradictions between the statement made under Sec. 161 and the
statement made in Court, as brought out in the cross-examination,
makes the witnesses unreliable and the two learned Judges, without
noticing the same have just brushed aside on the ground that the
omissions and contradictions are not material. The said conclusion in
our opinion, cannot be sustained. After going through the cross-
examination of the aforesaid witnesses, in our opinion, the witnesses
do not stand the test of stricter scrutiny, they being admittedly
inimical towards the accused persons. In this view of the matter, no
reliance could have been placed on their testimony and as such the
conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”
However, in this case, the evidence of PW7 is clearly corroborated by
other witnesses and therefore his evidence cannot be brushed aside
merely because he is inimical to the Appellant.
103. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
P.W.14 was not examined by the investigating agency and was not
included in the list of witnesses. However, she was subsequently
examined pursuant to an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
__________
Page  48  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
According to the learned counsel, P.W.14 was only a child witness, and
therefore, her evidence could not be believed. The learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar , reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 416 , to
contend that, while appreciating the evidence of a child witness, the Court
should seek corroboration.
 “ It is well settled that a child witness is prone to
tutoring and hence the court should look for
corroboration particularly when the evidence
betrays traces of tutoring.”
However, the investigation is not the only repository of evidence before
the Court, the Trial Court is well empowered under Section 311 of Code
of Criminal Procedure to examine or re examine any witness in order to
arrive a just decision in the case. Therefore, the evidence of PW14 cannot
be thrown out merely because she is not cited as a prosecution witness by
the investigation officer. Though the child witnesses are prone to be
tutored, in this case, no such materials were brought on record. Further,
the evidence of PW14 was corroborated by several other prosecution
witnesses and proved circumstances. Therefore, the said contention of the
learned counsel for the Appellant ought to be rejected.
104. The learned counsel further submitted that the Co-Accused
had been acquitted by the Trial Court on the basis of the same set of
__________
Page  49  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
evidence, whereas only A1 and A2 had been convicted. The prosecution
had failed to prove the alleged harassment inflicted upon the deceased so
as to attract the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The evidence of the
prosecution witnesses show that the parents of the deceased are poor and
the appellants are rich. Therefore, there is no question of demand of
dowry. The appellant had reached the hospital, and P.W.13 had admitted
the same. There was no intention on the part of the Accused to harass the
deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution
had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, he
prays that the benefit of doubt to be extended to the appellants.
105. He further relied upon Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 , to say, the absence of
specific dates, times and events and making bad allegations would not
attract Section 498-A of IPC. He relied upon Paragraph Nos. 4 and 14 of
the said judgment, which is extracted herein below:
“4. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that the Impugned Judgment dt. 14.11.2018 passed by the
High Court, suffers from non-application of mind, and non-
consideration of the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the
Appellant submitted that the allegations under Section 498A IPC and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, were unsustainable qua the
Appellant, as there is no independent evidence on behalf of the
prosecution, and the entire case hinges upon the deposition of the
father of the Complainant and Complainant herself. It was argued
that the Complainant who cohabited with the Appellant only for a
period of about a year, had made bald allegations without any
specifics of date, time or event, in the FIR in Case Crime No.
__________
Page  50  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
60/1999, which has only been registered as a counter-blast to the
Divorce Petition preferred by the Appellant. It is brought to our
notice that the divorce decree in lieu of their marriage, has already
been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the
Complainant, and hence has attained finality.
14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the
parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific
instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections,
without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the
case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability
of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing
specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking
criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed
that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the
divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of
the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.”
106. The learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 , Paragraph No.20, which is as
follows:
“20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that
appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated
him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not
mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.”
However, in the foregoing discussions, this court has elaborately
discussed the incriminating materials which completely discloses that the
deceased was subjected to persistent harassment at the hand of the
Appellant herein on account of demand of money to the extent of
__________
Page  51  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
directing the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there are sufficient
materials to sustain the conviction under Section 498A of IPC also.
107. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the Trial
Court has rightly concluded that the appellant herein had committed the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Hence, this
Court is of the considered view that the present Criminal Appeal should
fail.
108. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in S.C.
No. 334 of 2012 dated 16.08.2018 is hereby confirmed. The bail bond
executed by the first appellant is cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to
secure the first appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
jja
__________
Page  52  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Usilampatti Circle,
Madurai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  53  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )

CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
jja
CRL A(MD) No. 426 of 2018
29-10-2026
__________
Page  54  of  54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:07:19 am )