Kumar vs Ramesh and The State

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been preferred by P.W. 3 against the judgment in S.C. No. 652 of 2004 on the file of

the Magalir Neethimandram at Chennai. The case was registered against the accused u/s 306 IPC, which was taken cognizance of by the trial

Court and on appearance of the accused on summons copies u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed

u/s 306 IPC and when explained to the accused and questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 to P.W. 7

were examined and Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.8 were marked.

P.W. 1 is the mother of the victim girl Samundeswari. According to her, her daughter samundeswari was given in marriage to her brother some

10 years prior to the date of occurrence and that the deceased was also living withher at Korukupet at the time of occurrence. She had seen the

victim girl only in the hospital after the occurrence. According to her, the accused and one Valli have admitted the victim girl in the hospital. When

she enquired about the occurrence with her sister''s daughter Bhuvaneswari, she had informed that Samundeswari with a bucket of water entered

into the bath room, but she locked the door from inside and a little later the door was broke open by Ramesh and the victim was taken by Ramesh

to the hospital and that she preferred Ex. P.1 - complaint and in order to get the body of the deceased she informed the police that only due the

stomach pain she had committed suicide by consuming poison. She has further deposed that from Bhuvaneswari she came to know that the

accused used to misbehave with the deceased Samundeswari before the date of occurrence. She has further deposed that her brother was

arrested by the police and he was kept in the lock up for two days, thereafter only the accused was arrested.

P.W. 2 - Bhuvanesawari is the cousin sister of the deceased Samundeswari. She would depose that the marriage between Samundeswari and

the maternal uncle of P.W. 2 viz. Kumar took place some 10 years prior to the date of occurrence and she has been blessed with one boy and one

girl and that her sister Samundeswari was residing at door No.360, which belongs to her grand-mother. According to her, the accused is residing

at door No.359 and he is a bachelor and that he is addicted to drinks and used to misbehave with the deceased Samundeswari and on the date of

occurrence, the accused Ramesh had consumed liquor and while he was siting on the stairs Samundeswari came there carrying a pot of water, to

whom the accused had requested not to go to Aynavaram and if she goes to Aynavaram he will make a complaint to her husband and put her into

shame. Thereafter the deceased Samundeswari went to a shop and purchased ''fair and lovely'' cream and Samundeswari has not divulged the

same to her husband since he is suffering from epileptic fits. Thereafter her sister Samundeswari entered the house crying and after placing the ''fair

and lovely'' cream on the TV went inside the bath room and bolted the door from inside. Even after a lapse of 15 minutes she did not open the

door and on hearing the distress call made by her, the accused Ramesh came there and broke open the door of the bath room and carried her

sister Samundeswari on his shoulder and took her to the hospital and one Valli also accompanied Ramesh to the hospital. Later she heard that

Samundeswari is dead. In order to get the corpse of the deceased she informed the police that her sister Samundeswari died due to stomach pain.

Ramesh-accused also attended the funeral of the deceased. Two days thereafter Samundeswari''s husband bet her (P.W. 2), which made her to

reveal that only due to the behaviour of the accused, the deceased had committed suicide and that she along with the husband of Samundeswari

went to the police station and preferred the complaint on 23.4.2003.

P.W. 3 is the husband of the deceased Samundeswari. According to him, P.W. 1, his sister, had informed him that Samundeswari was admitted

in Stanley Medical College hospital for treatment and that she had committed suicide by consuming acid due to stomach pain and that P.W. 2 has

informed him four days after the funeral that the accused used to pull the saree of the deceased Samundeswari, which made her to commit suicide

and that Samundeswari did not reveal this to him (P.W. 3) since he was suffering from epileptic fits and that he had preferred a complaint to the

police.

P.W. 6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the complaint Ex. P.1 preferred by P.W. 1 under Korukkupet Police Station Cr.

No. 92 of 2003 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. He has visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P.6 and rough sketch Ex. P.7.

He had conducted inquest on the corpse of Samundeswari on 27.3.2003 before the panchayatdars. Ex. P.5 is the inquest report.

P.W. 7 is the Inspector of Police, who had conducted the investigation in this case. He had examined the father of P.W. 2 viz. Shanmugam and

on the basis of the statement made by Shanmugam he had altered the FIR from Section 174 of Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and Ex. P.8 is the

report. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had arrested the accused on 23.4.2003 at 13.30 hours and produced

him before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial custody.

P.W. 4 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Samundeswari. He has opined that due to the consumption of

acid the death had occurred. Ex. P.2 is the post-mortem certificate.

P.W. 5 is the doctor, who had admitted Samundeswari in the Stanley Government Hospital on 26.3.2003 brought by one Valli, who had

informed him that at about 3.00 pm on the same day Samundeswari had consumed acid. He had admitted the victim as an inpatient in the

emergency ward. Ex. P.3 is the copy of the accident register.

After completing the formalities P.W. 7 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. After

going through the evidence both oral and documentary the learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that the charge u/s 306 levelled against

the accused has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused, which necessitated P.W. 3 to prefer this

revision.

Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned trial Judge is full of manifest error or perverse in nature to

warrant any interference from this Court?

The Point : - 12(a) The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of P.W. 2-Bhuvaneshwari, who is the cousin sister of

Samundeswari. According to her, the accused used to misbehave with the deceased and on the date of occurrence the accused had prevented the

deceased from going to Aynavaram where her husband is living. According to P.W. 2, the accused used to misbehave with the deceased for

nearly two or three months, but since her (deceased), husband is an epileptic patient Samundeswari did not reveal the indecent act of the accused

to her husband or to any one else. The learned trial judge after analysing the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 has come to the correct

conclusion that there is no material on record to arrive at a conclusion that the accused is responsible for the suicidal death of Samundeswari. Even

according to P.W. 2, after the accused prevented the deceased Samundeswari from going to Aynavaram, she went to a shop and purchased ''fair

and lovely'' cream and kept it on the TV and with a bucket of water went inside the bath room and locked the door from inside. The learned trial

judge relying on this piece of evidence has come to the conclusion that the victim had not taken any poison with her while entering into the bath

room, but had consumed the acid which was available in the bath room for the purpose of cleaning the floor.

12(b) The learned Counsel Dr. G. Krishnamurthy would vehemently contend that there is no reason for the victim girl to commit suicide except the

indecent behaviour of the accused as spoken to by P.W. 2. But the fact remains till her death the victim girl has not informed or complained about

the misbehaviour of the accused to any one else. The reason assigned by P.W. 2 for not having disclosed the indecent behaviour of the accused to

her husband is that her husband is an epileptic patient. If it is so, she would have informed to other neighbours like P.W. 1, who is none other than

her aunt. It is in evidence of the Investigating Officer that he had altered the charge from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 306 IPC only on the

basis of the statement of one Shanmugam, the father of the victim girl, but he was not examined in this case. Through out it is the case of the

prosecution that the victim was suffering from stomach pain and only due to the unbearable pain she suffered, she consumed the acid. P.W. 1 &

P.W. 2 would say before the Court that in order to get the corpse of the victim they informed the police that only due to the enormous stomach

pain the victim girl had committed suicide. As correctly pointed out by the learned trial judge, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

12(c) As observed by the Honourable Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

and Another, , in a case of revision the duty of the Court which is exercising the revisional power cannot be justified in interfering with the order of

acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. The exact observation of the Honourable Apex Court in the above

ratio is as follows:

It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by

itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal. We

cannot say that the judgment of the trial Court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no

improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At

best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial Court took the opposite view. This Court has repeatedly

observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the court exercises only limited

jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to

convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a retrial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the

accused, and that itself must caution the court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any perverseness or manifest error in the findings of the learned trial judge to warrant any interference

from this Court in this revision, which is preferred by P.W. 3. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result the revision is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court in S.C. No. 652 of 2005 on the file of the Magalir Neethi

Mandram, Chennai. It is represent that Dr. G. Krishnamurthy has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel in this case for the revision petitioner.

Hence, the Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the legal aid counsel towards

his remuneration.