KARTHIK.V vs STATE REP BY
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 12-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
CNR: {HCMA011660412021}
1.Karthik.V
S/o. Venkatachalam, 351, Kallavi Road,
Samalpatti Village, Oothangarai Tk,
Krishnagiri.
2.Mageswari
W/o. Venkatachalam, 351, Kallavi Road,
Samalpatti Village, Oothangarai Tk,
Krishnagiri.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
State Rep By
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Cr.No.174 of 2018,
Samalpatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.133 of
2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir
Neethimandram, Krishnagiri District and set aside the Judgment dated
15.12.2021.
__________
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
For Appellant(s): Mr.N.R.Elango, Sr. Counsel
for M/s.K.Chandrakumar
For Respondent(s): Ms. Sharada Vivek,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assisted by Mr.M.Arul Raj
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the
judgment dated 15.12.2021 in S.C.No.133 of 2019, on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri District,
convicting them for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the
IPC and sentencing them as follows:
Offence under
Accused No.
Sentence imposed
Section
Each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months.
498-A IPC
A1 & A2
Each of them to undergo rigorous
304-B IPC
imprisonment for ten years.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
st
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the 1 appellant got
married to the deceased-Priyanka on 08.06.2017; that at the time of
__________
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
marriage, the parents of the deceased gifted 25 sovereigns of gold jewels
st
to the victim/deceased and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels to the 1 appellant;
st
that after marriage, the deceased was living with the 1 appellant in a
st
joint family with the parents of the 1 appellant and his elder brother’s
family; that after marriage, the appellants demanded more jewels and
caused cruelty in connection with the said dowry demand; that a child
was born on 23.07.2018; that the parents of the deceased spent money for
child birth and also gifted gold jewels weighing one sovereign to the
child; that even thereafter, the appellants committed cruelty in various
ways in connection with dowry demand; that the parents of the deceased
sold a property to give dowry to the appellants; that on 08.12.2018, the
deceased called her mother [PW1] and informed that the appellants were
demanding more jewels on par with the jewels gifted to the elder
nd st
daughter-in-law of the 2 appellant; that the 1 appellant had refused to
take the child to hospital and also stated that if the victim took the child to
the hospital on her own, she should return with 5 sovereigns of gold
jewels; and that unable to bear the humiliation and harassment, the
deceased committed suicide on 08.12.2018 at about 8.30 a.m.
__________
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
(ii) A complaint [Ex.P1] was lodged by PW1 at 3.00p.m. on
08.12.2018, which was registered as an FIR [Ex.P17] in Cr.No.174 of
2018 under Section 174(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Inspector of Police
[PW21]. In the complaint, PW1 had referred to the telephonic
conversation between her and the deceased on 08.12.2018 at about 7.15
a.m., and about the demand of 5 sovereigns of gold jewels made by both
the appellants. The investigation was commenced by the Inspector of
Police [PW20]. He had sent the body of the deceased for postmortem and
seized the dress materials of the deceased and thereafter handed over the
investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW22].
(iii) PW22 continued the investigation and requested the Revenue
Divisional Officer (RDO) [PW18] to conduct the inquest. PW18
conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P10]. Thereafter,
PW22 examined all the witnesses and filed the final report for the
offences under Section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai.
__________
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
(iv) On the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and committed to the Court of Session
in S.C.No.133 of 2019 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri District, for trial. The trial Court
framed charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the
IPC and in the charges had referred to the various acts of cruelty in
connection with the dowry demand said to have been committed by the
appellants, and when questioned, the appellants pleaded 'not guilty'.
(v) To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-two
witnesses, viz., PW1 to PW22 and marked nineteen documents, viz.,
Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, besides three material objects, viz., M.O.1 to M.O.3.
When the appellants were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the
same. On the side of the appellants, one Ruthramani, was examined as
DW1 and two documents were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, besides one
material object, to prove their defence.
__________
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond
reasonable doubt and held the appellants/accused guilty of offences under
Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them, as stated
above.
3. (i) Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel for the appellants
would submit that though the police officers knew about the occurrence
from the hospital authorities and were actively involved in the enquiry
even before the FIR was registered on the complaint said to have been
given at 3.00 p.m; that there was sufficient time for the witnesses to
deliberate and make an allegation of dowry demand in the complaint; and
that the FIR was sent to the Court only on 21.03.2019.
(ii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that the RDO
had examined all the relatives of the deceased, who were examined by the
prosecution and in his report [Ex.P10], found that the deceased
committed suicide because of an incident that took place pursuant to a
st
quarrel between the 1 appellant and the deceased on 08.12.2018 as
__________
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
regards taking of the child to the hospital; that the RDO had categorically
stated that the deceased had not committed suicide due to dowry demand;
that the evidence of the witnesses would reveal that they had made
exaggerated versions and several material improvements in their version
to bring home the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC; that the
accused had rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act by eliciting several favourable answers in the cross-
examination of the witnesses; and that therefore, the judgment of the trial
Court is liable to be set aside and prayed for acquittal.
4. (i) Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor per
contra submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the
parents of the deceased and that of her relatives; that there is evidence to
show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty in
connection with dowry demand; and that merely because the RDO had
opined that the deceased did not commit suicide due to dowry
harassment, the impugned judgment based on the evidence of the
witnesses cannot be faulted.
__________
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
(ii) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore, took this
Court through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that in the
light of the cogent evidence given by the witnesses, the impugned
judgment ought not to be set aside and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. (i) As stated above, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. PW1
is the mother of the victim; PW2 is the father of the victim; PW3 is the
brother of PW1; PW4 is the relative of the victim; PW5 is the junior
paternal uncle of PW1; PW6 is another brother of PW1; PW7 is the
brother's wife of PW2; PW8 and PW9 are the cousins of the victim;
nd
PW10, the eldest daughter-in-law of 2 appellant, had turned hostile; and
nd
PW11, the sister of the 2 appellant, also turned hostile.
(ii) PW12 is the neighbour, who first saw the deceased hanging;
PW13 is working in the Provisions store run by the appellants’ family and
stated that he saw the deceased hanging on the date of the occurrence;
PW14 is cited as the observation mahazar witness [Ex.P3]; PW15 and
PW16 are the doctors who conducted the postmortem and had issued the
postmortem certificate [Ex.P5]. According to them, the deceased died due
__________
Page 8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
to hanging in her room; and PW17 is the doctor who made entries in the
accident register [Ex.P7];
(iii) PW18 is the RDO who conducted the inquest and issued the
inquest report [Ex.P10]; PW19 is the constable who assisted the
investigating officer; PW20 is the investigating officer who conducted a
part of the investigation and handed over the investigation to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police [PW22]; PW21 is the Sub-Inspector who
registered the FIR under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C.; and PW22 is the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation and filed the
final report.
6. As stated above, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the
victim who got married to the first appellant on 08.06.2017 was subjected
to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, and
due to the said cruelty, she committed suicide on 08.12.2018 at about
8.30 a.m. Admittedly, the appellants had not directly demanded any
dowry from the parents of the deceased, who were examined as PW1 and
PW2.
__________
Page 9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
7. The victim is said to have informed about the dowry demand and
harassment in connection with the dowry demand to PW1 and PW2. The
other relatives of the deceased who were examined as PW3 to PW9 are
hearsay witnesses. Most of them deposed that they had no personal
knowledge of the demand of dowry and they only came to know from
PW1 and PW2, except for few of them, who claim that the deceased
informed them about the dowry demand.
8. The allegation as contained in the charge is that the appellants
demanded jewels at the time of marriage and hence, PW1 and PW2 had
gifted 25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the victim and five sovereigns of
st
gold jewels to the 1 appellant; that a few months later, when the victim
visited her parents' house during the month of ‘Aadi’ , on the demand
made by the appellants, they gave silver plates and other silver articles
weighing about one kilogram besides sarees and dress materials for the
st
deceased and the 1 appellant; that during the Diwali festival, they gifted
one sovereign of gold jewels; that when the victim was carrying, a baby
shower festival was conducted and on demand, four sovereigns of gold
__________
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
jewels were given; that they have sold their property to give dowry to the
appellants; that on the day of the occurrence at about 7.15 a.m. the victim
called PW1 and told her that the child had to be taken to the hospital; and
st
that the 1 appellant was refusing to do so and demanded five sovereigns
of gold jewels.
9. It would be pertinent to mention here that the witnesses in their
deposition have not stated about all the above alleged demands stated in
the charge. PW1 in her evidence had stated that there was a demand of
dowry immediately after the marriage and during ‘Aadi’ festival, on the
demand made by the appellants, silver articles weighing one kilogram
were given; that they demanded gold jewels; that after the ‘Aadi’ festival,
st
when the victim returned to her matrimonial home, the 1 appellant had
assaulted and lifted her by her neck; and that considering the future of the
deceased, they did not give any complaint. PW1 also would state about
the phone call said to have been made by the deceased on 08.12.2018 at
7.15 a.m. However, she had not stated about the specific demand of five
sovereigns of gold jewels said to have been made by the appellants.
__________
Page 11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
10. In the cross-examination, PW1 had admitted certain facts which
improbabilise her version with regard to alleged dowry demand. She had
stated that the appellants had spent money for the marriage; that even for
the baby shower function, PW1 and PW2 had given only Rs.50,000/- and
the remaining expenses for the function, which was attended by 500
persons, was spent by the appellants. The relevant portion in the cross-
examination is extracted for better appreciation of her evidence.
“
Cj;j';fiuapy; jpUkzk; vjphpfspd; brytpy;
ele;jJ/ vd; kfis tisfhg;gpw;fhf miHj;J
te;jnghJ kz;lgj;jpy; itj;J tisfhg;g[ ele;jJ/ vd;
kfspd; tisfhg;g[ bryt[fis vjphpfs; jhd;
bra;jhu;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ eh';fs;
U:/50.000-? bfhLj;njhk;/ mtu;fs; ntW vd;d bra;jhu;fs;
”
vd;gJ bjhpahJ/
11. PW1 had also admitted that there was no direct demand made
to her by the appellants and that she had not disclosed about the fact that
the appellants demanded dowry for the deceased to any person. She had
not stated about the alleged assault made by the 1st appellant and lifting
the deceased by her neck either to the police or to the RDO, as admitted
by her in her cross-examination.
__________
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
12. Above all, though PW1 had referred to some instances of
dowry demand, the RDO in his report, Ex. P10, had found that the
st
inquiry revealed that the deceased died due to a quarrel between the 1
appellant and the deceased on 08.12.2018 regarding taking the child to
the doctor. In fact, the RDO in his report had stated that the statements of
the witnesses, who have also been examined as witnesses by the trial
Court, do not suggest that the victim was subjected to cruelty in
connection with dowry demand or had complained about any such cruelty
to her parents or her relatives, and therefore, categorically found that the
deceased did not commit suicide on account of dowry demand.
13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the report of the RDO
cannot be the basis to arrive at any conclusion and an independent
assessment of the evidence has to be made. But, the fact is that all the
witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution, have made
improvements in their depositions before the Court, as could be seen by
the admissions made by PW1 and the other witnesses.
__________
Page 13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
14. PW2, the father of the victim, would admit that for the baby
shower function, they had contributed only Rs.50,000/-. He also would
confirm that the appellants had not made any dowry demand directly to
them. PW2 would also admit that at the time of the marriage, the
appellants had gifted 12 sovereigns of gold jewels to the deceased, which
is now in his possession.
15. PW3 is the brother of PW1. He would confirm in his cross-
examination that he came to know of the alleged dowry demand only
from PW1. He would also state that neither PW1 nor the deceased had
lodged any complaint accusing the appellants of dowry demand at any
point of time.
16. Likewise, PW4 is the relative of the deceased and he came to
know of the occurrence only through PW1. PW5 is the junior paternal
uncle of PW1 and he is also a hearsay witness. PW6 is another brother of
PW1. He is also a hearsay witness and has no personal knowledge of any
dowry demand. In fact, in the cross-examination, he would state that even
at the time of the marriage, no specific demand was made by the
__________
Page 14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
appellant and had left it to the discretion of PW1 and PW2 to gift
whatever was within their means to the victim.
17. PW7 is related to PW2 and he is another hearsay witness. He
confirms that he has no personal knowledge of the demand made by the
appellants. PW8 is the cousin sister of the victim and had stated that she
st
had learnt from PW1 about the quarrel between the deceased and the 1
st
appellant that the 1 appellant was refusing to take the child to the
hospital. However, she makes an improvement in her evidence that when
st
the 1 appellant was asked by the deceased to take the child to the
hospital, he had humiliated her by asking her as to whether her parents
had gifted a car for her to ask him to take the child to the hospital. This is
not even stated by PW1, who is actually said to have spoken to the
deceased.
18. PW9 is another cousin and is a hearsay witness. In fact, the
prosecution also sought to prove the dowry demand through PW10, who
is the eldest daughter-in-law of A2, who did not support the case of the
prosecution.
__________
Page 15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
19. Thus, from the above evidence, it would be clear that the
alleged dowry demand is spoken to by PW1 and PW2 and that the other
witnesses are hearsay witnesses. PW1 and PW2 have made several
improvements in their deposition which have not been stated in the earlier
statements before the RDO. From their own admissions, it could be seen
that there was no demand by the appellants at the time of the marriage.
They had also admitted that the expenses for marriage and baby shower
function were spent by the appellants.
20. Apart, from the improbabilities in the evidence of PW1 and
PW2, as stated above, most of the allegations that have been made in
Court have not been stated before the RDO, as could be seen from the
RDO’s report [Ex.P10]. The witnesses had no proper explanation as to
why they have not made those allegations in their statement before the
RDO. The witnesses have also admitted that the family of the appellants
were well-to-do and they owned a car even before the marriage. In fact, it
st
was suggested to the 1 appellant that he was doing independent business
and had a huge turnover. Considering the overall circumstances of the
__________
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
case, it is hard to believe that the deceased was subjected to dowry
demand as rightly found by the RDO [PW18] in his report.
21. Be that as it may. PW21, the Sub-Inspector who registered the
FIR, had admitted in the cross-examination that he received information
at about 8.00 a.m. from the hospital about the suicide committed by the
st
deceased. According to the 1 appellant, he gave a complaint narrating
the incident at 8.00 a.m. to the police and the police refused to register the
st
FIR. Even if this version of the 1 appellant is disbelieved, PW21, who
admitted the receipt of information about the suicide at 8.00 a.m. on
08.12.2018, had no reason to wait for any complaint till 3.00 p.m. Thus,
it could be seen that the police were present even before the registration
of FIR and the witnesses had sufficient time to deliberate and lodge a
complaint at 3.00p.m. and the FIR was sent to the jurisdictional
Magistrate only on 21.03.2019.
22. It is also pertinent to mention that some of the witnesses,
including PW1 and PW2, have stated before the RDO that the deceased
was beaten to death and could not have committed suicide, and therefore,
the tendency to exaggerate cannot be ruled out by this fact also.
__________
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
23. As to the cause of the death, it is the specific case of the
st
appellants that on 08.12.2018, there was a wordy quarrel between the 1
appellant and the deceased as regards taking the newborn child to the
hospital, and that the first appellant had stated that he would take the
child to the hospital on the next day, which was the immediate cause for
the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the witnesses also have admitted
that the deceased called PW1 and stated that she is taking the child to the
hospital and asked PW1 also to come to the hospital. In fact, the RDO,
after considering the statements, was also of the view that the deceased
st
was irked by the fact that the 1 appellant refused to take the child to the
hospital and therefore, had committed suicide impulsively. On the
overall consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
said finding is more probable and in any case has created more than a
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution.
24. In fact, the appellants had examined the brother of the deceased
as DW1 to substantiate their case that the deceased was upset, with the
fact that her brother was imprisoned at Hong Kong as he overstayed his
visit and was illegally employed; and that he could not attend her
marriage function or other functions held at home. This defence version
__________
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
also appears improbable. In any case, it is for the prosecution to establish
its case beyond doubt, which has not been done so in this case.
25. Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view
that the impugned judgment holding the appellants guilty of the offences
under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, cannot be sustained.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and
acquit the appellants.
26. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction
and sentence passed in S.C.No.133 of 2019, dated 15.12.2021 on the file
of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, are set
aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if
any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed
shall stand discharged.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
__________
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Samalpatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery Judgment in
CRL A No. 710 of 2021
26-10-2026
__________
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )