After Wife’s Two Poisonings and Death, Madras HC Upholds Husband’s Convictions for Dowry Cruelty and Abetment of Suicide

Tamilselvi died on 27 February 2010 after consuming phenobarbitone poison.

The prosecution alleged that her husband, A1 Chinnakodi, and his family persistently harassed her over demands for money and a share in her parents’ property. Tamilselvi had previously attempted suicide and had complained to the All Women Police Station; on 25 February 2010, after a police enquiry, she consumed poison again and later died. Her parents and daughter testified to statements Tamilselvi made about the harassment and the circumstances of her final suicide attempt.

The Sessions Court convicted A1 and A2 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, but acquitted them of the charges under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; A3 and A4 were acquitted of all charges.

A1 and A2 appealed. A2 died during the appeal, which abated as to her; the appeal proceeded only for A1.

Section 498-A IPC criminalises a husband’s or relative’s cruelty to a woman; Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide, with abetment understood through Section 107 IPC to require instigation, intentional aid, or other conduct amounting to abetment.

The Court recognised that Section 306 requires intentional instigation or persistent harassment and relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh for the need to establish a positive act and the accused’s mens rea, rather than infer abetment from harassment alone.

Statements by the deceased concerning the cause of her death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in her death are admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court also relied on Hema v. State for the principle that investigative lapses do not automatically defeat a prosecution if the evidence, independently assessed, is reliable.

It distinguished Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other authorities concerning isolated words or vague allegations, finding the evidence here showed sustained and proximate conduct.

The Court accepted evidence that A1 persistently demanded money and a share in Tamilselvi’s parents’ property, that she had earlier attempted suicide in the context of the harassment, and that the demands continued despite intervention by relatives and a police enquiry.

It treated the accounts given by Tamilselvi to her mother and daughter about being told to consume poison and die as admissible dying declarations, and considered them corroborated by the surrounding evidence.

The Court held that the alleged instigation was not an isolated remark in a quarrel: it formed part of continuing harassment, followed by a further demand and the placing of poison before Tamilselvi shortly before her fatal suicide attempt. It therefore found the requisite mens rea and a direct connection between A1’s conduct and the death.

The Court rejected the challenges based on the unproduced earlier complaint, alleged delay, non-production of a hospital record, and non-recording of a formal dying declaration, finding these matters did not undermine the prosecution evidence in the circumstances.

It also rejected the objections to the evidence of P.W.7 and child witness P.W.14, noting corroboration and the absence of material showing tutoring.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentence confirmed, A1’s bail bond cancelled, and the Trial Court directed to secure him to serve the remaining sentence.

The appeal stood abated as to A2 following her death.