Crl. A. No. 457 of 2006. Case: Ashok Kumar Vs State. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Crl. A. No. 457 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K. Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: A.N. Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | M. Venugopal, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313, 357, 357(3); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 305, 309, 506, 506(1); Tamil Nadu Prohibition Of (Harassment Of Woman) Act, 1998 - Sections 2(a), 3, 4 |
| Citation | 2014 (4) MLJ 89 (Crl) |
| Judgement Date | August 11, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
M. Venugopal, J.
-
The conviction and sentence dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai are now under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the Appellant. The Appellant/Accused was found guilty by the trial Court in respect of an offence under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years. Further, out of the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered to be paid to P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 as compensation in terms of the ingredients of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Further, he was found not guilty of the offences under Sections 305 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and resultantly, he was acquitted.
Gist of Prosecution Case:
-
The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant/Accused who was residing at the opposite house of deceased Chitra took the photographs (which were taken during the puberty ceremony) and by keeping those photographs with him, he blackmailed her to love him. Further, he often used to contact the victim Chitra over phone available at her employer's house and insisted that she should love him, otherwise he would murder her parents. Moreover, the Appellant/Accused on 08.01.2005 contacted the victim Chitra over phone and called her for an elopement. Inspite of her unwillingness, since the Accused insisted the victim Chitra repeatedly by threatening her, she is immolated herself at her employer's house at about 3.00 p.m. on 08.01.2005. Later, she succumbed to burn injuries on 10.01.2005. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet against the Appellant/Accused under Section 305 I.P.C., under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and under Section 506(1) I.P.C.
-
On the basis of accusation levelled against the Appellant/Accused, the trial Court framed two charges one under Section 305 I.P.C. or in the alternative under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and under Section 506(1) I.P.C. and he denied the same.
-
Before the trial Court, on the side of prosecution, witnesses P.W. 1 to 14 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 17 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. Ex. D. 1 was also marked on the side of the Appellant/Accused.
-
When the Appellant/Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the aforesaid offence.
-
The trial Court, on an appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had resultantly found that the Appellant was guilty under Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, he was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid by the Appellant to P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
-
Feeling aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C. No. 627 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, as an aggrieved person, the Appellant has projected the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court.
The Appellant's Contentions:
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court had committed an error in believing the tutored dying declaration of Chitra which was purported to have been recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 08.01.2005 at 4.15 p.m. and sent to Court on 09.01.2005 at 8.30 a.m.
-
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the trial Court had not taken into account the delay of 16 hours in respect of the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate Court which was unexplained by the prosecution and consequently, this throws a doubt on the entire truth of the case.
-
Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the dying declaration was not corroborated and material contradictions were very much evident which remain unexplained by the prosecution.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to submit that no local witnesses were examined to prove that the Appellant/Accused was teasing the deceased Chitra and this vital aspect was not taken into consideration by the trial Court.
-
Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court failed to bear in mind that the mobile phone of the Appellant was not decoded to show that he made a phone call to the deceased at 2.00 p.m. on 08.01.2005 and the threat caused was not established at all.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the ingredients of Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 were not made out by the prosecution in the present case.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act is not applicable to a private dwelling house. Admittedly, the incident took place in the house of P.W. 2 (working Flat 89 Poes Garden, Chennai) and therefore, as per Ex. P. 8-A.R. Copy, the ingredients of Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act are not attracted. To lend support to this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the order of this Court in Crl. R.C. No. 908 of 2010, dated 11.08.2011 between Anbazhagan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station, Kancheepuram District, CDJ 2012 MHC 2168: LNIND 2011 MAD 8211: (2012) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 29 whereby and whereunder, in paragraph 7, it is observed as follows:
"7. To attract offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 offence must have taken place at a place particularly covered by the Section. A private dwelling house is not one of such places Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 reads as follows:
4. penalty for (harassment or woman)-whoever commits or participates in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, part, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than thousand rupees.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that P.W. 1 (deceased father), in his evidence, had deposed that during last year 8th of January, he left her daughter in the house where she was employed her and at about 6.00 p.m. informed him over the phone, his daughter Chitra pouring kerosene and set fire to herself and immediately he went to the Royapettah Hospital and she spoke to him and further that she informed him that the Appellant phoned up to her and asked her to come along with him, otherwise he would murder her father, mother on the same day night and unable to bear his harassment, she feared that he would so something, she poured kerosene. Added further, since the Appellant continued to heckle her and unable to bear his harassment, she informed P.W. 1 that because of this reason she would not go for employment and therefore, he accompanied and left her.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that P.W. 5 (driver), in his evidence, had stated that he does not know about the Appellant/Accused and he heard that Chitra set fire to herself and he knew the deceased Chitra who worked as housemaid at P.W. 2's house and on hearing that she set fire to herself, he along with watchman took Chitra to the Royapettah Hospital in owner's vehicle and further, they phoned up for the Ambulance and since the Ambulance had not come in time and considering her life was at risk, they took her in the owner's vehicle and admitted her in the hospital and he had not enquired about anything with her.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the evidence of P.W. 3 (mother of deceased Chitra) and contends that when she went to the Royapettah Hospital along with her younger daughter and her husband, she asked her daughter Chitra as to why she had set fire to herself? and at that time, her daughter was in charred condition and further, she informed her that after she went for the work, sometime later, the Appellant phoned up to her to the owner of the house and threatened her that you have to love him. If you do not love like that he would murder her father and mother and so saying, he threatened her.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the evidence of Doctor P.W. 10 and contends that the injured Chitra informed P.W. 10 that she set fire to herself and on 08.01.2005 at about 3.20 in the afternoon, the said Chitra was brought by her house driver Jagan with burn injuries for treatment and she informed that her father's name was Ramamurthy (P.W. 1) and she was residing at Prasanna Vinayagar Street, Pudupettai, Gopalapuram, Chennai and at that time, she was in conscious state and she had not mentioned the reason for her suicide and also, she had not mentioned the name of the Appellant to P.W. 10-Doctor.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Ex. P. 11-Statement (at Burns ward of Government Royapettah Hospital) and submits that since the Appellant had harassed her by asking her to elope with him out of frustration, she poured kerosene of her body with a view to commit suicide.
-
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Ex. P. 6-Dying Declaration of Chitra given before the Learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai...
To continue reading
Request your trial