{"id":80541,"date":"2006-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-06-03T13:18:36","modified_gmt":"2018-06-03T07:48:36","slug":"illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 19\/08\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 1998\n\n\n1.Illango\n2.Saroja Ammal\n3.Vasuki Ammal\t\t\t\t....  \tAppellants\n\n\tVs.\n\n1.State rep. By\n  the Inspector of Police,\n  Meignanapuram Police Station.\n\n2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n  Tirunelveli Crime Branch,\n  Tirunelveli.\t\t\t\t....  \tRespondents\n\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the\njudgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nTuticorin in S.C.No.48 of 1991, dated 3.2.1998.\n\n\n!For Appellants  \t....\tMr.C.Gopinath, SC\n\t\t\t   \tfor Mr.P.Andiraj\n\n^For Respondents \t....\tMr.P.N.Pandidurai, APP\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Additional Sessions
\nDivision, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.48 of 1991, wherein these appellants along
\nwith the fourth accused stood charged under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC and
\ntried and A-1 to A-3 were found guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo two years RI along with a fine of Rs.1000\/-, in default to undergo 3
\nmonths RI and A-1 to A-3 were also found guilty under Section 304(B) IPC and
\nwere sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and the sentences to run
\nconcurrently, and the fourth accused was acquitted of the said charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Chitradevi.  P.W.1 is the brother of
\nthe deceased.  P.W.14 is the uncle of the deceased.  The marriage between the
\ndeceased and the first accused took place on 12.2.1986. At the time of marriage,
\n27 sovereign of gold jewels were given to the deceased.  After the marriage, the
\ndeceased and the first accused were living at Vellore, since the first accused
\nwas working as an Engineer at Vellore. After 10 days, P.W.1 took seethana
\narticles and went to Vellore to see her sister, the deceased.  At that time, A-2
\nexpressed her disappointment because bureau and vessels were not given at the
\ntime of marriage, and she has demanded for the same. During Pongal festival, A-1
\nand the deceased came to the house of P.W.2. At that time, the deceased was not
\nhappy. When she was asked about the same, she replied that her mother-in-law\/A-2
\nwas harassing her as she had not brought dowry and the deceased asked her mother
\nto give bureau and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels in view of the demand made.
\nAfter Pongal festival, A-1 and the deceased went to Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)At the time of Deepavali festival, A-1 and the deceased came to the
\nhouse of P.W.2.  At that time, the deceased was weeping and telling that the
\ndemand of bureau, chain and also TV was made. Since TV was not given, they left
\nthe house of P.W.2. During the seventh month of pregnancy of the deceased, she
\nwas brought back to her mother’s house after performing Valaikappu festival.
\nThen, a female child was born on 15.1.1987.  One week later, all the accused
\nwent to the hospital and see the new born child and all the accused also
\nattended the naming ceremony of the child performed.  Thereafter, on 5.4.1987,
\nthe deceased was taken to the house of A-3 situated at Koomadikottai.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)P.W.3 was working as Clerk in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank at
\nKommadikottai.  On 10.4.1987 at about 11.00 a.m. on hearing the noise coming
\nfrom the backside of the Bank, he rushed to the residential quarters of A-4,
\nwhere he saw the deceased was standing with burn injuries.  On hearing the
\nnoise, P.W.7, who is a neighbour, also rushed to the house of A-4 and knocked
\nthe eastern side door.  A-3 came and opened the door.  When P.W.7 questioned A-
\n3, she fell down and she could not give reply.  P.W.7 also saw burn injuries on
\nthe legs and hands of A-3 and also saw the deceased lying in a room. P.W.3 and
\nothers made an attempt to extinguish the fire. Thereafter, the deceased was
\ntaken to Rajan Hospital at Thisayanvillai by Car. A-2, A-3 and P.W.7 also
\naccompanied the deceased to the hospital.  Thereafter, P.W.3 tried to contact A-
\n4 over phone. Then, he went to Rajan Hospital at Thisayanvillai and met
\nDr.Rajan. As extensive burn injuries were found on the body of the deceased, the
\nDoctor advised them to take the deceased to Putheri Hospital at Nagercoil.
\nAccordingly, the deceased was taken to Putheri Hospital.  When the deceased was
\ntaken to the hospital by stretcher, P.W.5, who was working as Nurse in the
\nhospital, enquired A-3 as to how the deceased sustained burn injuries, for which
\nA-3 relied that while preparing incense for the child, the deceased caught fire.
\nWhen P.W.5 removed the cloth, kerosene smell came from it.\n<\/p>\n
\td)On 10.4.1987 at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased was admitted in the
\nhospital. At about 11.40 p.m., she died.  Thereafter, P.W.6, the Public
\nRelations Officer, Putheri Hospital, sent the death intimation to Vadaseri
\nPolice Station. P.W.8, the Head Constable attached to Vadaseri Police Station,
\nreceived the death intimation, proceeded to Putheri Hospital and recorded the
\nstatement Ex.P.6, at about 12 O’clock given by A-3 and returned to the Police
\nStation. He registered the case at about 1.00 a.m. in Crime No.160 of 1987 under
\nSection 174 Cr.P.C and prepared Ex.P.7, the FIR and sent the same to
\nMeignanapuram Police Station and also to the concerned Executive Magistrate. On
\n11.4.1987 at about 7.30 a.m., P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, Meignanapuram
\nPolice Station, received the FIR and sent the same to the said Police Station.
\nHe registered a case in Crime No.112 of 1987 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He sent
\nthe FIR to the R.D.O., Tuticorin, since the death has occurred within 7 years of
\nthe marriage in a suspicious manner. But, the R.D.O., Tuticorin, did not take
\nthe case for investigation, since the death was occurred at Nagercoil Hospital.
\nHence, he returned the FIR to Nagercoil R.D.O, who also did not take the case
\nfor investigation, since the occurrence took place in the jurisdiction coming
\nunder Tuticorin Division.\n<\/p>\n
\te)On 12.4.1987 in between 2.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., the R.D.O., Tuticorin
\nconducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.  Ex.P.1, the inquest
\nreport, was sent to the District Collector along with Ex.P.12, the report of the
\nR.D.O. On 12.4.1987 at about 4.40 p.m., P.W.10, the Doctor, attached to the
\nGovernment Hospital, Nagercoil, on requisition, conducted post-mortem on the
\ndead body of the deceased and she opined that the deceased could have been died
\ndue to extensive burn injuries about 30 hours prior to the post-mortem
\nexamination.  Ex.P.8 is the post-mortem certificate. As the R.D.O., Tuticorin
\ndid not give any order to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, he did not
\nconduct any enquiry in the case. After receiving the order on 31.10.1987, P.W.11
\ntook up investigation. He enquired P.Ws.3 and 7. Thereafter, he sent the case to
\nP.W.12, the Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Circle.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)As per the instructions given by the Assistant Superintendent of Police,
\nSrivaikuntam, on 5.12.1987, P.W.12, the Inspector, took up the investigation.
\nHe examined P.Ws.4 and 10 and recorded their statements.  On 6.12.1987, he
\nexamined P.W.7 and recorded his statement.  On 7.12.1987, P.W.12 examined P.Ws.4
\nand 5.  The preliminary investigation reveals that there is no material
\navailable as against the accused persons for framing charges, since it is a case
\nof accidental death. He conducted investigation from 5.12.1987 to June, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)As per the order, dated 22.12.1989, sent from the office of the Deputy
\nInspector General of Police and as per the CBCID order, P.W.13, the Inspector,
\nCBCID, took up the investigation on 5.2.1990.  On 24.3.1990, he examined P.W.7
\nand recorded his statement.  He drew rough sketch Exs.P.10 and 11.  On 3.6.1990,
\nhe examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements.  On 9.6.1990, he
\nexamined P.W.4, the Doctor, and recorded his statement. On 16.6.1990, he
\nexamined P.W.3 and recorded his statement. On 18.6.1990, he examined the R.D.O.,
\nTuticorin, and recorded his statement.  On 22.6.1990 he altered the case from
\nSection 174 Cr.P.C to Section 306 and 498(A) IPC and sent the report to the
\nCourt.  On 14.7.1990, he sent the requisition to the Judicial Magistrate,
\nSrivaikuntam, for recording S.164 Cr.P.C. statement from P.W.3 and one Enamuthu.
\nP.W.9, the Judicial Magistrate, recorded S.164 Cr.P.C. statement from P.W.3,
\nwhich is Ex.P.2.  On 6.8.1990, P.W.13 examined P.Ws.11 and 12 and recorded their
\nstatements.  After completion of the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice filed the charge sheet on 22.8.1990.\n<\/p>\n
\th)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
\n14 witnesses and relied on 12 exhibits and no M.Os. were marked.  On completion
\nof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned
\nunder Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the
\nevidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.  No
\ndefence witness was examined, but only one document was marked as Ex.D.1. The
\ntrial court heard the arguments advanced by either side and had a scrutiny of
\nthe materials available.  In consideration of the submissions made, the trial
\ncourt found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC
\nand awarded punishment as referred to above, but has acquitted A-4.  Hence, this
\nappeal at the instance of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior
\nCounsel made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant case, the prosecution has not proved either of the charge
\nas against any one of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly
\nreveal that the first accused and the deceased were living happily. P.W.1 has
\ncandidly admitted that both of them had attended Pongal and Deepavali festivals
\nin their place. In the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that there was
\nany dowry demand made by the first accused in general and in particular, there
\nis no allegation whispered against A-3. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, even though
\nthe prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 made an attempt as if there
\nwas dowry demand made, there is no material worth available to state that there
\nwas dowry demand made.  Originally when the investigation was made by the
\nInvestigating Officer from the respondent police, this part of the dowry demand
\nwas not actually found place.  After nearly a period of three years, when the
\ninvestigation was taken up by the CB CID, all the improvements in this regard
\nhave been made and the witnesses have also given developed version and thus, it
\nwould not satisfy the legal requirements. Hence, the lower court, in view of the
\nsame, should have acquitted the accused in respect of that part.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Aded further the learned Senior counsel that in order to find them
\nguilty for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, two circumstances were strongly
\nrelied on by the prosecution. One is the statement alleged to have been made by
\nA-2 immediately after the occurrence to P.W.3 and the other is the statement
\nalleged to have been made by P.W.5 when she questioned A-3 about the odour of
\nkerosene at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital of P.W.4.  The
\nlearned Senior Counsel pointed out that these two circumstances cannot be relied
\nupon for any purpose. He brought to the notice of the court the circumstance
\nleading to an irresistible conclusion that those things could not have come into
\nexistence at the earliest. Following the information given to the R.D.O.,
\nTuticorin, he conducted inquest. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P.1 and in
\nhis report, he has stated that the death was an accidental one, during which
\nP.W.14, the uncle of the deceased, and the other uncle were also examined and
\nthey have signed in the inquest report. Even from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,
\nthey were all very well available at the time of inquest.  P.W.14 and the other
\nuncle of the deceased were also present at that time which is also admitted by
\nthem. Thus, it would be clear that there is nothing to suspect the enquiry
\nconducted by the R.D.O. and when he recorded that it was an accidental one, the
\nwitnesses were available including the close relatives of the deceased.  In the
\ninstant case, when the inquest has been conducted at the earliest by the R.D.O.,
\nhe was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.  The
\nnon examination of the R.D.O., who conducted enquiry and has also recorded that
\nit was only an accident and that too in the presence of close relatives of the
\ndeceased, would be fatal to the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further the learned Senior counsel that the prosecution relied on
\ntwo circumstances. The first one was the statement alleged to have been made by
\nthe second accused to P.W.3. When P.W.3 questioned A-2 as to how it happened, A-
\n2 has stated that “what I have said, but she has done like this”. The
\nprosecution relied on this circumstance as if it is pointing to the commission
\nof suicide by the deceased. The learned Senior counsel took the court to the
\nearliest statement recorded from this witness, wherein he has not spoken
\nanything about this, but this particular version has come into record when CBCID
\ntook up investigation after a period of three years.  Thus, it could be seen
\nthat it was a developed one. Hence, it cannot be given any weight. Insofar as
\nP.W.5 was concerned, she was working as Nurse in the private clinic of P.W.4.
\nAccording to her, the deceased was brought to the hospital with burn injuries.
\nWhen she removed the cloth of the deceased, kerosene smell came and she
\nquestioned A-3. But, proper explanation was not forthcoming from her. Thus, the
\nallegation that the non explanation would also point to the commission of
\nsuicide by the deceased has got to be ruled out by the evidence of P.W.3.
\nAccording to P.W.3, at the place of occurrence, a 5 litre can with kerosene was
\nfound, from which only a lesser quantity was taken out and thus, it would be
\nclear that with that lesser quantity of kerosene, she could not be set fire,
\nsince major part of kerosene was available in the can. P.W.13, the Inspector
\nfrom CBCID, has clearly spoken the fact that P.W.5 has not spoken anything that
\nshe questioned A-3 and there was an answer and the answer was not
\nsatisfactorily, which were all not recorded by the Investigator at the time of
\ninvestigation. Now, it has got to be pointed out that even the investigation by
\nthe CBCID Inspector was done after a period of three years. The said facts were
\nnot mentioned before the earlier Investigating Officer, who took up
\ninvestigation. Thus, it would be quite clear that it was the subsequent
\ndevelopments and even the subsequent developments in that she committed suicide
\nby using kerosene, cannot be accepted for the reason that in the Can, only a
\nlesser quantity of kerosene was taken out, which would point to the fact that
\nshe cannot commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned Senior counsel would further add that in the instant case,
\nthe defence came out with a plea that at the time of occurrence, she was
\npreparing incenses in order to create fragrance from the smoke using the lesser
\nquantity of kerosene, but she caught fire accidentally and she died out of the
\nsame.  Immediately, the accused attempted to quench the fire, in which course,
\nA-3 also sustained injuries and the deceased was taken to the hospital. Thus, it
\nwould be indicative of the fact that the defence plea was true.  The learned
\nSenior Counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2004 SCC (Crl)
\n1417 (KALIYAPERUMAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU) and would submit that
\nin a case like this, to attract the penal provisions of Section 304-B IPC, the
\nprosecution must clearly rule out the possibility that the death could not have
\ntaken place in any other mode. In the instant case, the prosecution case is that
\nit is a commission of suicide. But, the prosecution failed to rule out the
\npossibility by any other mode. Under these circumstances, the lower court was
\nnot correct in finding the accused guilty for the charge under Section 304-B
\nIPC. Hence, both the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are nothing but
\nsubsequent developments in order to suit the case, which were not originally
\navailable for the prosecution at the earliest and thus, the said charge fails.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Insofar as the other charge under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, in
\nrespect of A-3, there is no material available and insofar as A-1 is concerned,
\nthere is ample evidence to show that it was he who took his wife to her parental
\nhome and have attended all the festivals and ceremonies and he was an Engineer
\nemployed at Vellore, having sufficient income and he married the deceased only
\nfor her beauty and therefore, there was no reason for him to make a demand and
\nhence, the case of prosecution insofar as the first accused is concerned, the
\ncharge under Section 498-A IPC also falls to ground.  Insofar as A-2 is
\nconcerned, the materials available were not sufficient to hold that she could be
\nfound guilty under Section 498-A IPC and under these circumstances, the
\nprosecution has not proved the case and hence, they are entitled for acquittal
\nin the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
\nThe case of prosecution is that one Chitradevi met with an unnatural death is
\nproved by the prosecution by sufficient evidence.  Following the inquest made by
\nthe R.D.O., Tuticorin, who was not examined, the dead body was subjected to
\npost-mortem by P.W.10, the Doctor and she has categorically opined that she died
\nout of burn injuries and thus, there is sufficient evidence to record a finding
\nthat the deceased Chitradevi died out of burn injuries sustained by her at the
\ntime of incident, in question.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The appellants were found guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A
\nand 304-B IPC.  In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution rested its
\ncase exclusively on circumstances, since it had no direct evidence to offer.
\nThe main circumstance, according to the prosecution, in respect of charge under
\nSection 304-B IPC, was the evidence adduced through P.Ws.3 and 5, who spoke
\nabout the circumstances.  According to the evidence of P.W.3, on hearing the
\ndistressing cry, he came and  questioned A-2, for which A-2 replied that “what I
\nhave said, she has done like this”.  From the evidence, it could be well
\ninferred that it was the case of commission of suicide.  The defence plea was
\nthat it was not the commission of suicide, but it was the case where she died
\nout of accident.  Before going to decide the question as to whether it was the
\ncommission of suicide as put forth by the prosecution or it was an accident as
\nput forth by the defence, it would be quite apt and appropriate to look into the
\nlegal positions in this regard. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the
\nsituation like this in a case reported in  2004 SCC (Crl) 1417, wherein their
\nLordships of the Supreme Court had clearly pointed out the ingredients to
\nattract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, which reads as follows:
\n\t“(i)The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or
\notherwise than under a normal circumstance.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
\nor any relative of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand
\nfor dowry.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman
\nsoon before her death.”\n<\/p>\n
A reading of the above decision would clearly show that the prosecution should
\nrule out the possibility that it could not have taken place except as one put
\nforth by the prosecution, i.e. as one suicide.  In the instant case, by applying
\nthe legal position as stated above and rendered by the Apex Court, the Court is
\nof the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved the charge against
\nthe accused in respect of Section 304-B IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The first and foremost circumstance in the instant case, which stands
\nagainst the prosecution is the inquest report given by the R.D.O. at the
\nearliest, which was marked as Ex.P.1.  On requisition, the RDO, Tuticorin made
\nan inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses now
\nexamined before the Court, namely P.Ws.1 and 2 and also P.W.14, who is none else
\nthan the uncle of the deceased and the another uncle, who is the brother of
\nP.W.14.  He has categorically found and recorded that it was the case of
\naccident and these two witnesses, P.W.14 and his brother have also signed in the
\nsaid document and thus, it would be quite clear that nothing can be stated
\nagainst the R.D.O., who conducted inquest.  In the instant case, he has not been
\nexamined.  The non examination of the R.D.O., who conducted inquest, is fatal to
\nthe prosecution case.  The prosecution has not come with any explanation. While
\nthe matter stood thus, as per the order of the Deputy Inspector General of
\nPolice, the case was taken up by the CBCID after a period of three years and the
\nwitnesses have been examined and the improved versions have also been noticed by
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The two witnesses relied on by the prosecution is P.Ws.3 and 5.  The
\nevidence of P.W.3 that when he immediately asked A-2, A-2 gave such an answer
\nand therefore, it could be inferred that the deceased committed suicide cannot
\nnow be accepted for the simple reason that when he was examined by the
\nInvestigator, he has not stated anything like this and when he was examined
\nafter a period of three years by P.W.13, he has given such an improved version
\nand thus, it would be quite clear that in order to suit the situation, it has
\nbeen added.  Apart from that the evidence of P.W.5 relied on by the prosecution
\nwas accepted by the lower court.  According to P.W.5, who was a Nurse attached
\nto the hospital of P.W.4, when she removed the cloth of the deceased, the odour
\nof kerosene came and she questioned A-3 and A-3 gave some answer, which was not
\nsatisfactory. According to P.W.5, when the statement was made, the third accused
\nand P.W.4, the Doctor, was also present.  But, P.W.4 has not spoken anything to
\nthe Investigator, nor had he deposed anything before the Court.  Thus, the
\nevidence of P.W.4 would make the evidence of P.W.5 suspicious or doubtful. Now,
\nthe other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.3.
\nAccording to P.W.3, a Can was found with kerosene and only a lesser quantity of
\nkerosene was taken out.  According to the defence plea, at the time of the
\nincident, the deceased was preparing incenses in order to create fragrance from
\nthe smoke, for which she used kerosene, with which at that time, she caught fire
\naccidentally. From the evidence of P.W.3, it would be clear that the Can
\ncontains major part of kerosene, but only a lesser quantity of kerosene was
\ntaken out, which would be indicative of the fact that the said kerosene cannot
\nbe used.  Apart from that, this version of P.W.5, what was now given, was only a
\nsubsequent development given before the CBCID Inspector and thus, this was not
\nthe earliest version, but improvement was made.   Thus, these two improved
\nversions were placed before the lower court and the lower court was also
\npreparing to accept the same.  Now, at this juncture, it is to be pointed out
\nthat this improved version before the CBCID Inspector has taken place after a
\nperiod of 2 or 3 years. Thus, these circumstances, in the opinion of the Court,
\ncannot be relied on to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC. Hence, the
\nCourt is of the considered opinion that these two circumstances are not
\nsufficient to find the appellants guilty under Section 304-B IPC and hence, they
\nare entitled for acquittal of the said charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Insofar as the other charge of Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the
\nCourt is of the considered opinion that no materials are placed to bring home
\nthe guilt of A-3 and thus, on scrutiny of the available materials, the Court has
\nto necessarily hold that A-3 has got to be acquitted. Insofar as A-1 and A-2 are
\nconcerned, the Court is unable to agree with the contention put forth by the
\nlearned Senior Counsel for the appellants.  The Court has to necessarily agree
\nwith the prosecution case insofar as A-1 and A-2, who are the husband and
\nmother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The prosecution has adduced the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. After the marriage was over, the Sreedhana articles
\nwere taken by P.W.2 to Vellore, where the first accused and the deceased were
\nresiding. Even after that, A-2 made a demand for vessels and jewels etc.  It is
\nan admitted position that during festival occasions, both A-1 and the deceased
\ncame to the place of P.W.2.  But, in all the occasions, the deceased has
\ninformed P.W.2 that there was a demand of dowry, namely bureau, gold jewels,
\nT.V., etc. From the evidence, it could be seen that TV was demanded by A-1.  The
\nlearned Senior Counsel took the court to a different part of evidence given by
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 that P.W.2 was in financial strain and therefore, he could not do.
\nUnder these circumstances, there cannot be any demand by A-1.  Apart from that
\nA-1 was an Engineer and he is sufficiently earning salary.  This part of the
\nevidence cannot be the answer for the demand made by A-1.  In the instant case,
\nthere are sufficient materials available.  From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it
\nis clear that there was a demand made strictly by A-2, who is the mother-in-law
\nand A-1 also had an occasion to make a demand of dowry.  Under these
\ncircumstances, the legal requirements under Section 498-A IPC is available
\ninsofar as A-1 and A-2 are concerned.  It is a case, where the lower court has
\ngiven a punishment of two years RI along with a fine for the said charge and it
\nhas got to be sustained. In respect of A-3, it has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court on
\nA-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC are sustained.  Insofar as
\nA-3 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court under
\nSection 498-A IPC are set aside and A-3 is acquitted of the said charge. The
\njudgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court on the appellants
\nfor the offence under Section 304-B IPC are set aside and the appellants are
\nacquitted of the said charge. It is reported that A-1 and A-2 are on bail.  The
\nSessions Judge is directed to secure their presence and commit them to prison to
\nundergo the remaining period of sentence.   The bail bond, if any executed by A-
\n3, shall stand terminated.  The fine amounts, if any paid by A-3, shall be
\nordered to be refunded to her.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Index : Yes
\nInternet : Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.Additional Sessions Judge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
   Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Meignanapuram Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\n  Tirunelveli Crime Branch,
\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/08\/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 1998 1.Illango 2.Saroja Ammal 3.Vasuki Ammal …. Appellants Vs. 1.State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Meignanapuram Police […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIllango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006"},"wordCount":4642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006","name":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-03T07:48:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/illango-vs-state-rep-by-on-19-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Illango vs State Rep. By on 19 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}