1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2013

Manoharan & Anr.               ….Appellants

Versus

State Rep. by  Inspector of Police          …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave, appellants (original accused Nos.2 and

3)  question  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated  04.12.2007

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  dismissing  Criminal

Appeal No.843 of 2006 and thereby affirming conviction and sentence of

appellants under Section 498A IPC.

2

2. A-1  Karuppaya,  son  of  appellants  got  married  to  one  Malathi,

daughter of Karuthekannan and Vellathai (PWs 9 and 15 respectively) on

26.02.2001.   According to the prosecution,  at  the time of marriage there

were dowry demands and accordingly 50 sovereigns of gold, 2 sovereigns of

hand  chain,  3  sovereigns  of  gold  chain,  cash  of  Rs.50,000/-  and  certain

house hold articles were given by the parents of Malathi.  After marriage the

couple started living at Cuddalore.  In June 2002 the couple was blessed

with a child.  It is alleged that thereafter A-1 prevented said Malathi to enter

the matrimonial home unless demands for additional dowry were satisfied.

Panchayat  meeting was held on 26.04.2003 but no compromise could be

arrived at.  A petition was sent by Malathi to the office of Chief Minister on

18.07.2003 whereafter  Cuddalore police conducted inquiry.   A-1 gave an

undertaking that  he would live with Malathi  and accordingly he brought

Malathi to the matrimonial home at Cuddalore on 08.12.2003.  

3. On the intervening night of 8th and 9th of December, 2003, there was a

quarrel between A-1 and Malathi and thereafter A-1 is said to have attacked

her brutally with aruval.  On 09.12.2003 at about 10.00 A.M.  A-1 confessed

his  guilt  before  PW-1  Village  Officer  and  surrendered  himself.   Crime

No.1587 of 2003 was registered pursuant to the information given by  PW-1,

Village Officer and the investigation was undertaken.

3

4. PW-20 the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and

recorded statement of A-1 in the presence of PW-19 and one Ramalingam

under  Exh.P-23 pursuant  to  which a  knife  was  recovered.  Body of  Said

Malathi was sent for post mortem which was conducted by PWs 10 and 11

who found following injuries:

“(1) Left side scalp there is an incised injury extending from the forehead to middle line of scalp about 9-10 x 1-4cm x bone depth.

(2) There is an incised wound mid line of scalp about 10 x 2 cm x bone depth.

(3) There is an incised wound right side forehead near the hair line about 6 x 3 x 2 cm.

(4) There is an incised wound just below the left eye 7 x 2cm x bone depth.

(5) There  are  two  incised  wounds  place  on  lower  jaw eloquently placed 6 x 1 cm upto bone depth other 4 x 1 cm x bone depth.  

(6) There is 3 x 1 x b one depth below the 5th injury.

(7) There  is  incised  wound  from  the  ankle  of  the  mouth obliquely placed 5 x 1 cm upto muscle.

(8) Missing of the lower jaw teeth left incised and canine.

(9) Fracture left side of mandible.

(10) Deep  incised  lacerated  wound,  right  side  of  the  neck extending from 4 cm away from the occipital prominence upto

4

middle of the neck, obliquely placed 10 x 1 x 3 cm upto muscle depth.

(11) Middle of the neck incised wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle depth.

(12) Abrasion over left side of the neck 2 x 1 cm.

(13) Incised wound right index finger, obliquely placed 3 x 2 x upto bone depth.  Fracture of bone of Phalanx.

(14) Incised wound on the dorsum of right hand 4 x 2 x 1 cm.

(15) There is lacerated injury on the (n.c.) about 3 x 1 x 1 cm left.

(16) Dorsum of left hand about 3 x 2 x 1 cm incised wound.

(17) There is incised wound varying in size left shoulder 4 to 6 cm x 1 x 1 cm.

(18) Incised wound left forearm 4 x 2 x 1 cm.

(19) There is incised wound left shoulder 6 x 1 x 1 cm.

(20) Abrasion over right knee 4 x 2 cm.”

5. Charges  were  framed  against  A-1,  A-2  and  A-3  for  offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also

under Section 4-A(1)(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act, 1998 (1998 Act, for short).  Court of Sessions at Cuddalore by

its judgment and order dated 11.09.2006 in Sessions Case No.82/2006 found

A-1 guilty of offences punishable under Section 302, 498A IPC and under

Section  4-A(1)(2)(i)  of  1998  Act.  The  appellants  were  acquitted  of  the

5

charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 4-A(1)(2)(i)  of 1998 Act but

were convicted for the offences under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to

undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-,

in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.  During

the course of its judgment, the trial court observed:

“P.W.27  in  her  deposition  would  state  that  on  11-10-2003 relating to the letter forwarded from the Chief Minister’s Cell to the  all  Women  Police  Station,  Cuddalore,  an  enquiry  was conducted by her and at that time the deceased Malathi, A.1 and the parents of both sides were present, however, on the accused side  time  was  sought  for  taking  back  Malathi.   From  her deposition it is clear that on 11-10-2003 there was no talk about the dowry problem.  Hence, in such a case, in the absence of the letter sent to the Chief Minister’s Cell having been filed before this Court, the defence theory has to be accepted to the effect that in the letter sent to the Chief Minister’s Cell there was no reference about the dowry problem and the enquiry at the police station also was not on dowry problem and to that much extent the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused relating to dowry problem.  As such, the evidence of PWs 26 and 27 in no way show that there was any talk regarding dowry problem.  In such a case there is force in the contention of the defence side that the problem between the parties is not mainly centered on dowry, even though as per the evidence discussed supra there were talks about the gold jewels and payment of money.”

6. The  appellants  challenged  their  conviction  and  sentence  by  filing

Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2006 while A-1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.

1050 of 2006.  Both the appeals were disposed of by common judgment and

order dated 04.12.2007, which is presently under appeal.    The High Court

6

affirmed the view taken by the trial court and maintained the conviction and

sentence of all three accused.   

7. The appellants being aggrieved, preferred this appeal by special leave.

Initially, the appellants were granted exemption from surrendering and later

they were ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court,

which benefit the appellants have enjoyed all through.  It appears that the

conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 has attained finality and in this

appeal we are concerned only with conviction and sentence of appellants

under Section 498A IPC.  Appearing for the appellants, Mr. V. Prabhakar,

learned Advocate invited our attention to the observations of the trial court

as quoted hereinabove.  In his submission the appellants were entitled to

acquittal.  Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate for the State, however,

supported the judgments rendered by the courts below.

8. The evidence in the present case shows that after the letter was sent by

Malathi  to  the office of  Chief  Minister,  inquiries  were conducted by the

police.  The evidence further indicates that at that juncture, no complaint

was  made  by  Malathi  or  her  parents  regarding  any  dowry  related

harassment. Further, she was brought to Cuddalore on 08.12.2003 where the

couple used to live separately and the incident in question occurred on the

intervening night between 8th and 9th December, 2003.  In the circumstances,

7

the evidence on record is completely inadequate to bring home the charge

against the appellants.  We have gone through the entirety of the matter and

in our considered view, both the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order

of  conviction  and  sentence  as  recorded  against  the  appellants.   The

appellants are acquitted of the charge of Section 498A IPC leveled against

them.  The appellants are on bail.  Their bail bonds stand discharged.  

…………………..……J. (Arun Mishra)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, May 9, 2018