302 Judgement Conviction

1
In the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.
Present: Thiru. S. Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., P.G.D.C.F.S.,.,
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Madurai. (FAC)
Monday, the 24th day of December 2018.
2049 Thiruvalluvarandu Srivilambi Year Margali Thingal 9th day.
Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
PRC No.19/2015
Melur Police Station Crime No.467/2013
Sessions Case No: 10/2016
Complainant : The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division.
Name of the accused : 1. Basheer Mohammed (41/2018)
S/o. Ismail
2. Mohammed Ali Jinna (56/2018)
S/o.Ismail
3. Rasool Beevi(50/2018)
W/o. Mohammed Ali Jinna
4. Fathima Beevi (75/2018)
W/o. Ismail
Charges framed : S. 498A IPC – Husband or relative of
against the Accused husband of a woman subjected her to
cruelty.
S.302 IPC – Punishment for Murder.
S. 302 r/w. 34 IPC – Punishment for

Murder.
S. 201 IPC – Causing disappearance of

evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screen offender.
2
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Finding of the Judge The 1st Accused is found guilty of the offences
:
punishable u/s. 498A, 302 and 201 IPC.
The Accused 2 to 4 are not found guilty of the
offences punishable u/s. 498A, 302 r/w. 34
and 201 IPC.
Order of Sentence : In the result, the 1 st Accused herein is con
or victed for the offence punishable under Sec
Judgment tion 498A of IPC and sentenced him R.I. for 2
years and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/ in de
fault he shall undergo 6 months S.I. The 1 st
Accused herein is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sen
tenced him an imprisonment for life and im
posed a fine of Rs.5000/ in default he shall
undergo 1 year S.I. The 1 st Accused herein is
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him to un
dergo 5 years R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.
3000/ in default he shall undergo 9 months
S.I. Further, it is directed that he shall un
dergo all the above punishments concurrently.
The 1st Accused is entitled to set off the period
already undergone by him in the prison if the
life imprisonment is commuted to a sentence
lesser than the life imprisonment by the ap
propriate authority. The Accused A2 to A4 are
acquitted from the offences punishable u/s.
498A, 302 r/w. 34 and 201 IPC. The proper
ties M.O.1 to M.O.7 golden jewels remanded
in RPR No.327/2013 of Judicial Magistrate,
Melur were already in the interim custody of
its owner, as per order of Judicial Magistrate,
Melur in Crl.M.P.No.5056/2013 dated:
16.8.2013, and the same is restored to his cus
tody. The bail bond executed by the Accused
are hereby canceled.
3
The above case came up before this Court on 29112018
for final hearing in the presence of Tmt.C. Uamarani, the Special
Public Prosecutor for the State, Thiru.S.M.A. Jinna, Thiru.M.U.
Shamim John and Mr.K. Nayim, Advoctes for defacto complainant
and the Accused is on bail and defended by Advocates
Thiru.P.N. Pandidurai, Thiru.R. Sivakumar, Thiru.M.Karthikeyan
and Thiru.V.Sathiskumar, upon hearing both sides and upon
perusing the case records and having stood over till this date for the
consideration of this Court, this Court delivers the following:
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub

Division laid final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Melur which reads that the 1st Accused Basheer Mohammed, 2nd
Accused Mohammed Ali Jinnah, 3rd Accused Rasool Beevi and the
4th Accused Fathima Beevi are residing at Sandhaipettai, Melur
Taluk, Madurai District. The defacto complaint Hawa Beevi belongs
to Mosque Street, Sakkanthi, Sivagangai District. The deceased
Rafiyathul Bazaria is the daughter of the defacto complainant.
Prior to 3 years before the occurrence, the marriage between the
deceased and the 1st Accused was held. After the marriage, the
deceased was living with the Accused A1 to A4 as joint family. After
the marriage, the Accused Al to A4 demanded money and jewels as
dowry from the deceased and harassed her in this connection
continuously. The deceased has given birth to one female child by
4
name Abira. The 1st Accused demanded the deceased to bring gold
bangles for the child and harassed the deceased in this connection.
Thereafter, in order to tonsure the child, the Accused demanded a
sum of Rs.50,000/ from the deceased and insisted her to get the
same from her parents and harassed her in this connection.
Accused A2 to A4 along with 1st Accused compelled the deceased to
get money and jewel from her parents and harassed her
continuously in this connection. Therefore, on 8.8.2013, when the
brother of the defacto complainant Nagoor Gani came from abroad,
the 1st Accused scolded the deceased for not brining cell phone for
him, by his brotherinlaw. While so, with an intention to cause
death of the decased Rafiyathul Bazaria, on 9.8.2013 at around
11.45 a.m., the 1st Accused strangulated her at his house situated
near Veterinary Hospital, Sandhaipettai, Melur, along with
Accused A2 to A4. Therefore, the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria died
on the spot due to Asphyxia. Thereafter, with an intention to
conceal the evidence, the Accused herein poured kerosene on the
dead body of the deceased and set fire. Therefore, the actions of the
Accused herein are punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 r/w.
34 of IPC.
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur has taken

cognizance of the said final report and after furnishing copies of
documents relied on by the prosecution to the Accused under Section
207 Cr.P.C., committed the above case to the Principal District
5
Court, Madurai under Section 209 Cr.P.C as the offences alleged are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
3. The Principal District Court has taken the said case on
file in Sessions Case No.10/2016 and made over to this Court for
disposal in accordance with law. The case of the prosecution was
opened by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and after hearing
both sides, this Court has framed charges against the 1 st Accused
under Section 498A, 302 and 201 IPC, against the Accused 2 to 4
under Section 498A, 302 r/w.34 and 201 IPC, and when the charge
were read over and explained to the Accused and questioned about
the same, the Accused herein denied the same and therefore, they
were ordered to be tried before this Court on those charges.
Thereafter, trial date was fixed and summonses were issued to the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to
P.W.20 on its side and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 and M.O.1 to 7.
With the evidence of investigation officer, the prosecution has closed
its evidence.
4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the

evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows:
P.W.1 Nagoor Gani, the brother of the deceased, in his
evidence, deposed that he is working at Dubai. The defacto
complaint Hawa Beevi is his mother and she died on 22.7.2017. The
name of his younger sister is Rafiyathul Bazaria. They married his
younger sister Rafiyathul Bazaria to the 1st Accused Basheer
6
Mohammed on 7.7.2010. At the time of marriage, 33 sovereign of

jewels, cot and bureau were gifted. More than 200 sarees were gifted
at the time of marriage. The 1st Accused was working in a school as
sanitary worker where his father was working. His father is one who
has taken the 1st Accused to Dubai. On 8.8.2013, in order to celebrate
Ramzan, he came to Madurai from Dubai. From the Airport he has
gone to the house of his sister Abdula Beevi situate at Melur.
Thereafter, since his younger sister Rafiyathul Bazaria has given
birth to a child, in order to see the child and his younger sister he
has gone there, gifted clothes and talked with her for about half an
hour or 45 minutes. He, his wife and his mother have gone and
thereafter they returned to Sakkanthi. The next day, due to
Ramzan, they wore new dresses and offered prayer at the Mosque,
expressed their wishes to everyone. Like that, he expressed wishes
to his younger sister Rafiyathul Bazaria. Abdula Beevi phoned him
and informed him that the husband of the deceased and his relatives
picked quarrel with the deceased not to put the clothes and rings
offered by P.W.1. P.W.1 has phoned up the deceased and when he
enquired the deceased, she informed that nothing was happened.
Again he asked the deceased as to what she has stated to Abdula
Beevi. For that also, the deceased informed that nothing. When he
questioned her as to whether he should come. For that, the deceased
informed him that since it is being a day of Ramzan, he need not
come and asked him to come next day. On the same day, he phoned
7
up the 2nd Accused and asked is there any quarrel. For that, the 2 nd
Accused informed that the fault is with his sister and since there are
many works, asked him, to come next day. Thereafter, he phoned up
to the 1st Accused and the 1st Accused has spoken with him without
any respect. Since, P.W.1 is elder to the 1 st Accused, he asked him to
give respect. He informed that the 1st Accused that he will bring his
paternal uncle to their house. For that, the 1 st Accused informed that
to bring any one. After 10 minutes he again phoned up to the sister
and questioned her as to whether she has taken food and dressed the
child with new dress. For that, the deceased informed him that since
you have come after 11/2 years, celebrate Ramzan and asked him to
come next day. One day prior to his arrival on 7 th, the 1st Accused
and his relatives demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from his sister for
the purpose of tonsuring and the same was informed by his mother
to him. His mother informed his sister that her brother has now only
come and she would get money from him. On 9.8.2013, at around
11.30 a.m., the 2nd Accused phoned him and informed him that a fire
accident was happened and asked him to bring everyone. When
P.W.1 enquired about the details, the 2nd Accused has cut the phone.
He has phoned up to his sister Abdula Beevi and asked her to go and
visit his younger sister. His sister Abdula Beevi and her husband
have gone to his younger sister house. He called his relatives
Mohammed Ansar to bring a vehicle to go to his younger sister’s
house. Since on that day is a day of Ramzan no vehicle was
8
available. At that time, the President of Jamath Abdul Kadar,

Secretary Kaja Moideen have come to his house. Since they are his
relatives, he asked details from them. For that they told that
everything was over for Rafiyathul Bazaria and asked them to be
brave. They informed him that his mother has so much of affection
towards Rafiyathul Bazaria and therefore asked him not to inform
her. He, his wife and his mother, his two children and his relatives
two women have proceeded to Melur by Amni Car. When they
phoned up to his sister Abdula Beevi, she was crying. When they
visited the house of the 1st Accused, there was crowd and when they
enquired, it was reported that her younger sister body was taken to
Mortuary. He has gone to the Government Hospital, Melur in a
motor cycle. Where the body of the deceased was laid in a stretcher
in front of the Mortuary and one person has removed the stud worn
by the deceased. His relatives were crying. He, his uncle Shahul
Hameed, his mother, his sister Abdula Beevi have gone to Melur
Police Station. His mother has given a complaint with the police, in
which she signed. P.W.1 has identified the signature found in the
complaint is the signature of his mother.
P.W.2 Abdula Beevi, the sister of the deceased, in her
evidence, deposed that the deceased is her sister. The marriage
between her sister and the 1st Accused was held on 7.7.2010. At that
time, the 1st Accused was working in abroad under his father. From
the day one of marriage, the motherinlaw, the brother of the 1 st
9
Accused demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/ for belly blessing ceremony
and Rs.50,000/ for tonsuring the child and harassed her sister. Her
sister used to phone her often and report about the same and she has
also used to console her. Since she was also in the same locality, she
used to get money from her father and used to give it to her sister
and brotherinlaw. The Accused used to pick quarrel with her sister.
Since the deceased has given birth to a female child, the Accused
demanded money from her father and brother. After the birth of the
female child, they demanded jewel. They have also offered chain and
other things. A ring was offered to the girl child. Bangles were also
offered. On 8.8.2013, her brother has come from abroad. He visited
her and her sister and gifted certain things. There was quarrel
thorough out the night, which her sister informed over phone. She
sent message also. The next day at around 10.00 am., she phoned to
the deceased to wish Ramzan. At that time, she informed her that
the Accused are not allowing her sister to wear dresses and jewels
gifted by his brother. She asked her sister to keep quite and phoned
his brother P.W.1. P.W.1 called the 2 nd Accused and informed him
that the 1st Accused is harassing his sister and asked him to question
the same. For that the 2nd Accused informed him that the fault is
only with his sister and since it is the day of Ramzan, asked him to
come next day. She again phoned up her sister at about 10.40 a.m.
For that the deceased informed that she has not to come, if she
came, they will not allow her for her daughter’s marriage. On the
10
next day, when mother and brother would come, come along with
them. At around 11.45 a.m., his brother phoned and told that the 1 st
Accused phoned her brother and informed that the fire accident was
happened and therefore, her brother asked her to go to his sister’s
house. On visiting there she found that her sister was found in a
charred condition lying down on her back. The 2 nd Accused used to
phone her. But, on that day, she got information only from their
house. She and her husband have gone to the house of the 1 st
Accused. Police have assembled. The street peoples were also
assembled. Her mother shouted the Accused that they are telling
that her daughter has committed suicide, are they not heard the
sound of her daughter. The Accused replied that they have not
heard. Dowry harassment is the cause for the death of the deceased.
Thereafter, they have gone to Government Hospital, Melur.
P.W.3 Abuthakeer, the husband of P.W.2, in his evidence
deposed that on 7.7.2010, the deceased was married to the 1 st
Accused. 32 sovereign of gold jewels and Rs.5 lakhs worth seer
articles were gifted. At the time of marriage, the 1 st Accused was
working at abroad. After 3 years, the deceased has given birth to a
child. 3 sovereign chain and silver chain were offered to the female
child. The 1st Accused and his relatives told that the seer is not
sufficient and left the deceased at the house of her mother. His wife
informed her father that they demanded seer articles and therefore
his fatherinlaw has come to India. Thereafter, the deceased was
11
taken to the house of the 1 st Accused. Within one week there from,

the Accused murdered the deceased and burned her with kerosene.
The message was first given to Sivagangai and thereafter they came
to know. He and her wife visited the 1 stAccused house. There, the
deceased was in a charred condition. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police enquired him and he has shown the phone. He shouted from
the outside that they have murdered the deceased and somebody
from inside asked his wife to tell her husband to speak properly.
After, everyone has come, they have gone to the Government
Hospital, Melur. On the next day he was examined by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, in his office.
P.W.4 Shahul Hameed, in his evidence, deposed that

Abdula Beevi was married to Abuthageer. The deceased was married
to the 1st Accused. At the time of marriage, 33 sovereign jewels,
utensils, cot, bureau were gifted. At the time of marriage, the 1 st
Accused was working at Dubai. The marriage was held on 7.7.2010.
After marriage, the 1st Accused was living with the deceased for
about one week and thereafter has gone to abroad. After 11/2 years,
the 1st Accused returned to India and was working in the shop of the
2nd Accused. The deceased became pregnant. On 5.4.2013 a female
child was born to her. As per Muslim customs, in the 40 th day
naming ceremony will be conducted. For that function, the Accused
and the relatives have come. The girl child was gifted with chain,
12
ring, anklets and belly chain. The Accused did not accept that and
boycotted the function and went back. It was informed to the father
of the deceased. After one month he has come to India. On 13.7.2013,
he, the father of the deceased, wife of P.W.1 and Hanifa of Sikkanthi
have gone to Melur and met with the 2 nd Accused, informed him that
the conduct of the Accused in the 40 th day function is not proper and
asked him to express their demand. On 17.7.2013, since it was
fasting period, he was in Madurai. His brotherinlaw phoned him up
and informed him that he is going to send his daughter Rafiyathul
Bazaria to her house and asked him to come and have food. Since he
is observing fasting, he said that he cannot take food and informed
that he would come for send off. At that time, 3 sovereign chain,
silver belly chain and gold bangles, ring, anklet and a sum of
Rs.10,000/ were gifted to the deceased. The Accused 2 and 3 have
come. The deceased was send off to her husband’s house. On
8.8.2013, P.W.1 returned from Dubai and visited his sister
Rafiyathul Bazaria. He has gifted dresses to his sister and child and
offered gifts. After send off of the deceased, the 1st Accused
demanded a sum of Rs.5000/ from his wife for conducting tonsuring
function. Only if that money is given, she would wear the saree
gifted by her brother. Since she has worn the saree he was murdered
the deceased, who was feeding her child by strangulation. In order to
conceal the said offence, the Accused 2 to 4 poured kerosene on her
and set fire. At 12.00 noon P.W.1 informed him that the Accused
13
have murdered his sister and set her fire. He, his wife and relatives
visited the house of the 2nd Accused. The 2nd Accused was alone in
the house. When they questioned him, he informed that the body
was sent to the Government Hospital. They have gone to
Government Hospital and found the body of the deceased there.
P.W.5 Mookan in his evidence deposed that 4 years
before, between 11.00 and 12.00 hours, he was ironing the clothes.
At that time, the mother of 1st Accused has come and shouted “ Inah
mk;kh”. Peoples were assembled at the house of the 1 st Accused.

Therefore, he has gone to the 1 st floor, Smokes were spread
excessively.
P.W.6 Noor Mohammed, in his evidence, deposed that the
2nd Accused is residing at the southern side of the 1 st floor, the 1st
Accused is residing at the northern side. He did not remember when
the marriage was held. They have one female child. 4 years before on
the day of Ramzan he has gone to offer prayer at Mosque. At around
10.00 a.m., he returned to his house. When he was in his house and
was taking sweets at about 10.30 a.m., the 2 nd Accused and his
daughter came to his house with sweets. The distance between his
house and the house of the 2 nd Accused is about 11/2 km. They were
talking with each other. At that time, some body has phoned up the
2nd Accused. The 2nd Accused has gone away about 6 feet and had
spoken. He had anxiety, when he was questioned, he informed that
fire was broken in his house and taken his daughter with him. At
14
that time, he was taking food. After taking food he has gone to the
house of the 2nd Accused in his two wheeler. At that time he has seen
that the mother of the 2nd Accused came from 20 feet by weeping.
They were gone to the up stairs. In the up stairs, the deceased was
found to be burned. Peoples have assembled. The police have come
and asked them to go down.
P.W.7 Seeni Kathar, in his evidence, deposed that
Accused 1 and 2 are residing opposite to Mani Mark Kalappai
Company. At the time of occurrence, the 1st Accused had one child.
Prior to 4 years, when he returned after prayer, he found that in the
house of the 2nd Accused smokes has come. Peoples were getting
down from the up stairs. He has also claimed up, since police have
asked him to go down, he came back.
P.W.8 Bakkeer Masthan, in evidence, deposed that the 2nd
Accused was residing at the ground floor and the 1 st Accused was
residing at the 1st floor. Prior to 3 years, when he returned after
prayer, in front of the house of Accused 1 and 2, there was crowd.
When he questioned, they informed that the deceased committed
suicide. When he attempted to go to up stair, the police asked him to
go down. The prosecution has treated him hostile, as he did not
support the prosecution case.
P.W.9 Subbulakshmi, deposed in her evidence that she is
having Tea shop in front of Mani Mark Company. The Accused 1 and
2 are residing in the up stairs. 4 or 5 years before, she was making
15
tea at her shop. The persons who are at Sandhaipettai shouted “

Inah/ mk;kh ” She claimed that she did not know anything about
the occurrence and therefore, she was treated as hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.10 Syed, in his evidence, deposed that on 9.8.2013,
on the date of Ramzan, after offering prayer, he was having food at
his house, at about 11.00 a.m. In his street, peoples have spoken
among themselves that the deceased has set fire to herself. He has
gone to the place of occurrence and come down. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police visited the place of occurrence and observed
the place of occurrence and recovered 10 littre white colour plastic
can, half burnt kid’s jatti and Gown under the cover of Athatchi, in
which he and Abdul Vahib signed. Further, he identified his
signature found in Observation Magazer and Athatchi which were
marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 respectively, P.W.10 was partly treated
as hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.11 Kannan, the Revenue Inspector, deposed in his
evidence that on 12.8.2013, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
called him over phone. He and his assistant Moorthy visited the
police station. The 1st Accused was arrested and kept there. The 1 st
Accused has given confession statement. Thereafter, one Governor
Malai, one necklace, 2 big rings, 13 child rings, one set of bangles,
silver belly chain, one pair of silver anklet were recovered under the
cover of Athatchi, in which he and his Assistant signed. His
16
signature in the confession statement of the 1st Accused and in

Athatchi is marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively.
P.W.12 Moorthy has also corroborated the evidence of
P.W.11. His signature in Athatchi and in confession statement of
the 1st Accused are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 respectively.
P.W.13 Dr.Murali Paulkannan, in his evidence, deposed
that on 9.8.2013, at around 1.00 p.m., a female body aged 21 years
Rabiayathul Bazaria was brought dead which he recorded in
Accident Register and as per the requisition given by the constable
756 Palaniyappan, he sent the body to Mortuary.
P.W.14 Abdul Vahith, in his evidence, deposed that on
9.8.2013, he has come to his sister Abdula Beevi’s house for
celebrating Ramzan festival. At about 11.45 a.m., his sister received
a phone call. She cried that her sister was murdered by the family
members of the Accused. He has visited the place of occurrence. He
and Syed were standing in front of the house of Jinnah at about 6.00
p.m. At that time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has come and
has taken both of them to the bed room of deceased. By opening the
door, on the left side of the room there are traces of sitting with burn
injuries were found. The police have observed the place and a 10
littre white colour can with cap, half burnt jatty of a child and gown
were taken and kept in a plastic bag. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police, recorded a statement in which he and Syed signed. He
17
identified the 2nd signature in Athatchi and Observation Magazer,

which are marked as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8.
P.W.15 Dr.Velmurugan, in his evidence, deposed that on
10.8.2013, he received a requisition to conduct Post Mortem of the
deceased and he conducted Post Mortem examination on the body of
the deceased as identified by Head Constable 572 Ganesan. The body
was found with complete burn injuries. Hip, knees, elbows, wrist
were folded in boxing position. The body was found with 98% to
100% burn injuries. On the right forehead 3 x 3 cm. antimortem
injury was found. Tongue was protruded out. Her hair was not
burnt. On examination, it is found that there was a fracture on the
left side of the hyoid bone. There is no soot particles found in trachea
and the stomach was found with no odour and according to the
doctor, the deceased would have died due to Asphysia prior to 18 to
20 hours of the post mortem examination. The Post Mortem Report
was marked as Ex.P.9.
P.W.16 S. Arumugam, the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, Madurai, in his evidence, deposed that since the death of the
deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria wife of Basheer Mohammed was
happened within 7 years of her marriage. He received the First
Information Report relating to Cr.No.467/2013 dated 9.8.2013
registered u/s. 174 Cr.p.c. on 10.8.2013, he visited the Mortuary of
the Government Hospital, Melur and conducted inquest. After the
inquest, he examined the mother, sister, brother, husband of the
18
deceased and the panchayathars. From the above enquiry he found
that the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria so much attached with Muslim
way of life. He forwarded his preliminary report to the District
Collector and Melur Deputy Superintendent of Police and the said
Preliminary Report is marked as Ex.P.10. In the Preliminary Report
he reported that the death was happened due to demand of dowry.
P.W.17 Arumuga Nayinar, the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, Madurai, in his evidence, deposed that the First Information
Report in Cr.No.467/2013 was received by his predecessor on
10.8.2013, he has conducted inquest and prepared Preliminary
Report. After receipt of Post Mortem Report, based on the statement
of the witnesses, statement of the panchayathars he came to a
conclusion that the deceased was died due to demand of dowry and
forwarded his Final Report to the District Collector and Melur
Deputy Superintendent of Police and the said Final Report is
marked as Ex.P.11.
P.W.18 Ramakrishnan, the then S.I. of Police, Melur P.S.,
in his evidence, deposed that on 9.8.2013, due to Ramzan festival he
was conducted patrol. At that time, 12.00 noon, he received
information that a female was died due to the fire accident on
Sandhaipettai near Veterinary Hospital. He visited the place of
occurrence and found in the house of one Ismayil, in the upstairs,
the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria was found with burn injuries on her
body in the bed room. Her jewels were sticked with her chest in a
19
burned condition. The studs were found with smoke. The doors of
bed room was opened one side and closed on the other side. The
hairs of the deceased were not burned. Her tongue protruded
outside. On hearing information, the Inspector of Police and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police visited the place of occurrence.
Photographs of the deceased were taken. Since it is the day
Ramzan, there was much crowd. The body was taken to Government
Hospital, Melur through Head Constable 756. In this connection, the
mother of the deceased lodged Ex.P.12 complaint with Melur Police
Station. He registered Ex.P.13 First Information Report in
Cr.No.467/2013 u/s. 174 Cr.P.C, since the death was happened
within 3 years of the marriage. He forwarded the First Information
Report and complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer along with
the requisition for conducting inquest. He forwarded one copy to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police and other copies to higher officials.
P.W.19 Ashok Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Melur Sub Division, in his evidence, deposed that on
9.10.2013 he took investigation of this case, he visited the place of
occurrence and prepared Observation Magazer and Ex.P.14 Rough
Sketch in the presence of witnesses Syed and Abdul Vahib. On the
same day, at around 19.15 hours he recovered one 10 littre white
colour plastic can, the burned particles from the clothes of the
deceased, burned jatti of female kid, gown and plastic bag of a textile
shop under the cover of Ex.P.15 Athatchi. He examined the
20
witnesses Hawa Beevi, Syed and Abdul Vahib and recorded their
statements. On 10.8.2013, he examined the witnesses Nagoor Gani,
Abdula Beevi, Shahul Hameed, Subbulakshmi, Ramakrishnanan
S.I. of Police, and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited
the Government Hospital, Melur and was present during the inquest
conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On 10.8.2013, he
received the Preliminary Report from the Revenue Divisional
Officer, he came to know that there was suspicion in the death of the
deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria. On 11.8.2013, he examined the doctors
Murali Paulkannan, Senthilkumar and Velmurugam and recorded
their statements. On 12.8.2013, he examined the Village
Administrative Officer Kannan and Village Assistant Moorthy and
recorded their statements. On 12.8.2013, at around 6.00 a.m., he
arrested the Accused in front of Melur Bus Stand and the 1 st Accused
Basheer Mohammed voluntarily has given a confession statement
which he recorded in the presence of Village Administrative Officer
Kannan and Village Assistant Moorthy. The admitted portion in the
confession statement of 1st Accused is marked as Ex.P.16. Based on
the confession statement of 1 st Accused, he recovered M.O.1 to M.O.7
jewels under the cover of Ex.P.17 Athatchi. He forwarded the
recovered articles under Ex.P.18 Form 95 to the Court and further
he forwarded the Accused to judicial custody. On 12.8.2013, altered
the case Sections from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302, 102 and 304(B)
IPC and forwarded Ex.P.19 Alteration Report to the Court. He
21
applied for obtaining CDR of the deceased, Accused, the sister and
brother of the deceased. At this juncture, since he was transferred he
handed over the case diary to his successor.
P.W.20 Mangaleswaran, the then Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Melur Sub Division, took up further investigation of the
above case. He examined the witnesses, since they repeated their
earlier statement before the earlier Investigation Officer, he did not
record any fresh statements. On 10.9.2014, he examined Head
Constable 572 Ganesan, who was identified the body of deceased for
post mortem and recorded his statement. Thereafter, on completion
of investigation, after obtaining permission for draft charge sheet
from the Deputy Director of Prosecution laid final report on
18.10.2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, against
the Accused as stated supra.
5. The incriminating materials and circumstances

appeared in the evidence were put to the Accused under Section
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the Accused denied them as false and reported
that they have no evidence on their side. The 1 st Accused has given
his written explanation u/s. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. which was also
recorded. Thereafter, the defence side evidence was closed.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor heard for the
State and the learned counsel for the defence was also heard. The
learned counsel who assisted the defacto complainant has also filed
22
a written submission under Section 314 Cr.P.C. which was also

recorded.
7. Point for determination?
1) Whether the death of the deceased is homicide or suicide?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the demand of dowry soon
before death?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the
Accused u/s. 498(A), 302 r/w. 34 and 201 IPC?
4) If the charges are proved, what sentence to be awarded to the
Accused?
ANSWER:
8. Point No.1:
The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the
deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria is the daughter of the defacto
complainant. Prior to 3 years before the occurrence, the marriage
between the deceased and the 1 st Accused was held. After the
marriage, the deceased was living with the Accused A1 to A4 as joint
family. After the marriage, the Accused Al to A4 demanded money
and jewels as dowry from the deceased and harassed her in this
connection continuously. The deceased has given birth to one female
child by name Abira. The 1 st Accused demanded the deceased to
bring gold bangles for the child and harassed the deceased in this
23
connection. Thereafter, in order to tonsure the child, the Accused

demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the deceased and insisted her to
get the same from her parents and harassed her in this connection.
death of the decased Rafiyathul Bazaria, on 9.8.2013 at around 11.45
a.m., the 1st Accused strangulated her at his house situated near
Veterinary Hospital, Sandhaipettai, Melur, along with Accused A2 to
A4. Therefore, the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria died on the spot due
to Asphyxia. Thereafter, with an intention to conceal the evidence,
the Accused herein poured kerosene on the dead body of the
deceased and set fire.
9) Further, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is an unfortunate case of murder of a women by
her husband and relatives and they, after committing murder, in
order to conceal the said murder, have burned the body of the
deceased to show as if she committed suicide. P.W.1 is the brother of
the deceased. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is the
husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the uncle of the deceased. From their
evidence, the prosecution has established that the Accused herein
24
harassed the deceased on demand of dowry from the date of her

marriage and more particularly after the child birth, they have
demanded dowry and a sum of Rs,50,000/ for conducting tonsure
ceremony of the girl child. A day prior to the occurrence, on 8.8.2018
P.W.1 has come to India from Dubai and visited P.W.2 and the
deceased and gifted clothes and things, he purchased in abroad.
Since the demand of Rs.50,000/ was not met out by the parents of
the deceased, the 1st Accused picked quarrel with the deceased and
not allowed her to wear the clothes gifted by her brother on the day
of Ramzan. She informed about the said quarrel to P.W.2 and in
turn P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1. When P.W.1 phoned up the
2nd Accused, the 2nd Accused also found fault with the deceased and
asked him to come on next day, to discuss about the same. In the
said quarrel, the 1st Accused herein has strangulated the deceased
when she was feeding her child and caused her death. In order to
screen the said offence and to show as if she has committed suicide,
the 1st Accused along with the help of Accused A2 to A4 set fire to the
body of the deceased and thereby attempted to conceal the evidence.
From the evidence of doctor who conducted Post Mortem
examination, the prosecution has clearly established that the hyoid
bone of the deceased was found with fracture, the tongue of the
deceased was protruding, no soot particles were found in trachea and
these observations completely supports the findings of the Post
Mortem doctor that the death was happened due to asphyxia by
25
compression on neck which resulted in cardiac arrest. The death
was happened in the bed room of the deceased where the deceased
and the Accused were living and there is no explanation on the side
of the Accused as to how the deceased died. Though the 1 st Accused
has claimed that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the
said claim cannot be accepted. The medical evidence available in the
records clearly indicates that the death of the deceased is a homicide
and no materials are available to suggest an inference that it could
be a suicide. Based on the confession of the 1 st Accused M.O.1 to
M.O.7 jewels were recovered from the custody of the 1 st Accused
which also clearly corroborates the case of prosecution. Therefore,
according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution
has proved the guilty of the Accused and she prays for conviction of
the Accused in all charges leveled against them.
10) The defacto complainant assisted the prosecution and
the learned counsel for the defacto complainant has filed his written
submissions under Section 314 Cr.P.C. wherein he submitted that
based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased, a case
was registered u/s. 174 Cr.p.c. in Cr.No.467/2013. From the evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 it is clear that the deceased was
living with the Accused at the house where she died, on the date of
occurrence. She was subjected to harassment at the hands of the
Accused on demand of dowry. The Accused did not dispute that the
Accused Al to A4 were not residing along with the deceased. From
26
the evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Velmurugan, who has conducted Post

Mortem examination of the body of the deceased, the deceased was
died due to asphyxia and due to compression on the neck. In the Post
Mortem Report it is clearly mentioned that the hyoid bone was found
with fracture and no soot particles were found in trachea and there
is one 3 x 3 c.m. anti mortem injury on the fore head of the deceased.
From the above, it is clear that the deceased has not committed
suicide. But, she was murdered by the Accused and in order to
screen the said offence, the Accused herein have poured kerosene on
her and set fire to her. The burden to prove the facts exclusively
within the knowledge of any person is upon that person. Since the
defence has not contended that they have not resided along with the
deceased and they have to give explanation as to how the death was
occurred in their house is upon them. Further more, u/s. 113(b) of
Indian Evidence Act, this Court can raise presumption as to dowry
death, if it is shown that soon before the death the deceased was
subjected to harassment on demand of dowry, that the said persons
have caused dowry death.
11) The learned Counsel who assisted the prosecution
relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras reported in
Crl.A. No.282/1992 and Crl.R.C.No.621/1991, the decision of Ho'ble
High Court Calcutta reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 928, the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 249,
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 3 Supreme
27
Court Cases 654, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

(2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in this regard. Furthermore, the
learned counsel who assisted the prosecution, in his written
submissions, submitted that the Accused have to explain the
incriminating circumstances when they were examined under
Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and the non explanation would add further
chain in the case of substantial evidences. Furthermore, the learned
counsel who assisted the prosecution submitted that lapses on the
part of the investigation agency does not inure any benefits to the
Accused. Therefore according to him, the prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and he prays for conviction of the
Accused in all charges leveled against them.
12) Per contra, the learned counsel for the defence
contended that P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the
sister of the deceased, P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the
relative of the deceased. They are not witnesses to the occurrence,
but they have cited as witnesses to prove the demand of dowry. None
of the above witnesses have deposed about the demand of dowry,
But, they deposed only with regard to demand of amount for the
ceremony of tonsure and naming ceremonty. As per Dowry
Prohibition Act, dowry is a demand in connection with marriage.
Since the demand made herein is not pertinent to the marriage,
which cannot treated as demand of dowry. P.W.5 to P.W.10, the
neighbours of the Accused in their evidences deposed only about the
28
fact that smokes were came from the house of the Accused. Apart
from that P.W.5 in his evidence clearly deposed that the mother of
the 1st Accused has come there by shouting and crying. P.W.6 in his
evidence deposed that the 2nd Accused along with her daughter came
to his house and offered sweets, at that time he got phone call from
some one and after hearing news from the phone, he become anxious
and rushed back to his house. The contact of Accused A2 to A4
makes it very clear that they have not involved in the above
occurrence. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution that the Accused
herein strangulated the deceased and set fire on her body was not
seen by anybody. The Investigation Officer has also in his cross
examination admitted the above. He further admitted that there is
demand of dowry on the side of the Accused. From the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the police have reached the
spot earlier than registering the F.I.R. But, F.I.R. was registered
with a delay of 15 hours and it further reached with delay of 17
hours to the Court, makes that the case of prosecution is a fabricated
one. P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he has given
statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in his office
and he signed in the same. Further, the said statement was not
produced before this Court. Therefore, the earlier information in the
case was suppressed. Apart from that P.W.2, in her evidence,
deposed that she gave a complaint with the police. The said
complaint was also suppressed. Within 2 days, the case was altered
29
u/s. 302 IPC without any materials. The prosecution has failed to
produce Inquest Report, conducted by the Revenue Divisional
Officer. Further, the viscera of the deceased was not forwarded for
chemical examination. P.W.16 in his report stated that the probe is
to be made relating to the telephone talks between the witnesses and
the Accused to find out whether it is suicide or murder. Though the
Investigation Officer has stated, in his evidence, that he has taken
steps to recover call details of the deceased, Accused and witnesses
cell phones, the same was not forwarded to this Court. Further, in
the Post Mortem Certificate it is mentioned that the deceased was
died due to Asphyxia by compression on neck with.... From the
statement of P.W.17 Arumuga Nayinar it is clear that yet another
Post Mortem Report was furnished to him, wherein the doctor has
opined that the deceased would have died due to 100% superficial
burn injuries on her body. The Post Mortem Certificate issued that
the deceased died due to Asphyxia is an after thought and that is the
reason why in the Post Mortem Certificate, the opinion of the doctor
runs that the deceased would have died due to Asphyxia by
compression of neck with ..... and thereafter nothing was written
and thereafter the word ‘Cardio pulmonary arrest’ was inserted
which makes it clear that the second Post Mortem certificate was
prepared as an afterthought. Apart from that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who conducted preliminary investigation
in the above case, has suppressed many vital facts before this Court.
30
Though the plastic can was said to have recovered from the place of
occurrence and the dress materials were not produced before this
Court. The defacto complainant has approached the Hon’ble High
Court, in Crl.MD.No.16824/2017 and W.P.No.490/2018, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has directed to conduct an enquiry in this
regard. Apart from that the Investigation Officer has committed yet
another blunder in the case. It is clear that the jewels worn by the
deceased was sticked to her chest after melting and the ear studs
were also found with smokes. Post Mortem Constable has clearly
admitted in his cross examination that he recovered the above
articles from the deceased and handed over to the Investigation
Officer. However, the said material objects were not produced before
this Court. The call details and cell phone belonged to the deceased
were not forwarded to the Court. The sticking jewels were handed
over to P.W.1, those jewels whether the jewels recovered from the
custody of the Accused, based on his alleged confession which was
marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. There is no explanation on the side of the
prosecution as to what happened to the jewels found in the body of
the deceased and ear stud which were recovered from the body; The
Investigation Officer is the one who has to accounts for it. None of
the witnesses have spoken about the kerosene smell in the body and
even in the Observation Magazer, it was not observed that in the
place of occurrence, they found kerosene odour. Even the doctor, who
admitted the deceased in Government Hospital, Melur, did not
31
record in the Accident Register that the body is found with kerosene
smell. Apart from that the Accident Register said to have recorded
by him was not produced before this Court. From the evidences
available on record, it is clear that all the Accused are not residing in
the same house. It is elicited by the defence that A2 and A3 are
residing in the upstairs of A4. A4 is living in the north faced house.
Al is living in the south faced house and therefore the presence of
the Accused in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence is
not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The 1 st
Accused is the one who worked under the father of the deceased. He
is the one who had taken by his father in law to Dubai and got
employment for him, Since the father of the deceased found that the
1st Accused is a good character and conduct, he married his daughter
to the 1st Accused. The good conduct of the Accused is relevant and
bad character is not relevant. The 1st Accused lived here only about
30 days and thereafter gone to Dubai to work along with his father
in law. After, 11/2 years he returned back. Therefore, the mens rea
that they demanded dowry is not at all arise. Raja, who arranged the
marriage of the 1st Accused with the deceased was not cited as
witness, as he is not amenable to other prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution has suppressed so many documents before this Court.
Though the S.I. of police who visited the place of occurrence, in his
evidence deposed that he caused the photos of the deceased taken.
The said photos were suppressed before this Court and the
32
photographer who have taken those photos was not examined before
this Court. According to the prosecution, the gold jewels recovered
from the custody of the Accused were appraised by an Appraiser and
he was also not examined before this Court. The defence theory of
case is self immolation is more probable due to the fact that the
brother of the deceased P.W.1 has gifted dresses to the deceased and
child. The fateful day being the day of Ramzan, the 1 st Accused asked
to wear the clothes purchased by him, not the clothes gifted by her
brother. Because that there was a quarrel between them in this
regard. Due to this petty quarrel, when the 1 st Accused has gone to
purchase the meat and the deceased committed suicide and only on
his return, the first Accused found the deceased in charred
condition. Only from the cry of Al, the other Accused came and found
that the deceased dead. They have taken the body of the deceased by
ambulance to Government Hospital, Melur. It is clear that the death
of the deceased is self immolation and not murder. In this case,
though the Investigation was almost over, the charge sheet was not
filed immediately. But, filed with a delay of 12 months and there is
no explanation on the side of the prosecution as to why such a delay
was occurred, The delay could be explained that since conscious
pricks they have not filed charge sheet immediately. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the defence, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the Accused
33
herein are entitled to the benefit of doubts. Therefore, he prays for
acquittal of the Accused from the charges leveled against them.
13. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to
the rival submissions put forth by either side. It is the case of
prosecution that the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria is the daughter of
the defacto complainant. Prior to 3 years before the occurrence, the
marriage between the deceased and the 1st Accused was held. After
the marriage, the deceased was living with the Accused A1 to A4 as
joint family. After the marriage, the Accused Al to A4 demanded
money and jewels as dowry from the deceased and harassed her in
this connection continuously. The deceased has given birth to one
female child by name Abira. The 1st Accused demanded the deceased
to bring gold bangles for the child and harassed the deceased in this
connection. Thereafter, in order to tonsure the child, the Accused
demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the deceased and insisted her to
get the same from her parents and harassed her in this connection.
death of the decased Rafiyathul Bazaria, on 9.8.2013 at around 11.45
a.m., the 1st Accused strangulated her at his house situated near
34
Veterinary Hospital, Sandhaipettai, Melur, along with Accused A2 to
A4. Therefore, the deceased Rafiyathul Bazaria died on the spot due
to Asphyxia. Thereafter, with an intention to conceal the evidence,
the Accused herein poured kerosene on the dead body of the
deceased and set fire.
14) In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has
projected P.W.1 to P.W.20 on its side and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19
and M.O.1 to 7. On the side of the defence no witness was examined
and documents were marked.
15) The month of Ramzan is very auspicious to the
Mohammedians and the day of Ramzan is a day for celebration as it
marks the end of fasting. Here on the day of Ramzan not only the
fasting is ended but also one life, but not for any pious reasons but
due to avaricious. The day of Ramzan, turned to be an unpleasant
day for the deceased, her relatives and of course the Accused. Here
the case of the prosecution unfolded by the evidence of prosecution
witnesses follows:
On 8.8.2013, P.W.1 has returned to India from Dubai
after serving there about 11/2 years, in order to celebrate Ramzan,
here with his family at Sivagangai. On 8.8.2013, as he landed at
Madurai Airport, he immediately rushed to visit her lovable sisters,
P.W.2 and the deceased at Melur and gifted cloths and things which
he purchased in dubai on the occasion of Ramzan, the next day. The
visit of P.W.1 to India, on 8.8.2010 and his visit of his sisters at
35
Melur were not disputed by the defence. From the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is clear that P.W.1 has visited his sister,
the deceased herein on 8.8.2013 and gifted clothes and things to
them. The next day being day of celebration i.e. Ramzan. P.W.1 has
offered prayer in the Mosque and returned to his house and called
the deceased over phone and wished his sister. Everything goes
smooth till such time.
16. Thereafter, PW1 received phone call from P.W.2 and
PW2 informed PW1 that there was a quarrel between the deceased
and the 1st Accused in their house. Immediately, he rang up to the
deceased and the deceased informed him that there is no quarrel
there. After his insistence, she made her mind open and told him
that this day being the day of Ramzan, asked him to celebrate with
his family as he came after 11/2 years and asked him to come
tomorrow to speak about issues. The phone call made by P.W.1 to
the deceased was not disputed by the defence. P.W.1 in his cross
examination also confirmed that at the first instance she has not
stated anything and asked him to come tomorrow and only at his
insistence she has stated that to celebrate Ramzan and come next
day.
17) Thereafter, he called the 2nd Accused over phone and
questioned him is there any quarrel there. For which, the 2 nd
Accused informed that the fault is on the side of the deceased and
asked him to come tomorrow to discuss about the same. The said call
36
made to 2nd Accused was also not disputed. Again P.W.1 has made
phone call to the 1st Accused and there was exchange of words
between them and he informed the 1st Accused that he would bring
his paternal uncle tomorrow for which the 1 st Accused also shouted
to bring any one. The said phone call made to the lst Accused was
also not disputed by the defence.
18) However, it is contended on the side of the defence
that Revenue Divisional Officer, in his Preliminary Report stated
that whether the death of the deceased is homicide or suicide, the
call detail report said to have made between the deceased, Accused
and witnesses is to be probed and he has given direction to that
effect. Though the Investigation Officer claimed that he applied to
get the call details of the said persons, it was not produced before
this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defence contended
that this Court can draw an adverse inference against the Accused
on this aspect. However, in view of the fact that the defence has not
disputed the phone calls made to the deceased, P.W.2, 2 nd Accused
and 1st Accused, this Court is the considered opinion of non
production of call details will not dilute the case of prosecution.
19) Apart from that from the evidences available on
record, it is found that on the side of the Accused after the child
birth, the Accused demanded certain jewels and since it was not met
out by the parents to the deceased, the Accused herein boycotted the
40th day ceremony. After the father of the deceased have come to
37
India, he spoke with the Accused and gifted the jewels demanded by
the Accused and only thereafter, the deceased was taken by the
Accused. Further, after the deceased was taken to the house of the
Accused, there was a demand of Rs.50,000/ in order to celebrate
tonsure to the child and only in this connection the Accused did not
allow the deceased to wear the dresses gifted by P.W.1 on the
occasion of Ramzan. The first Accused also in his written
explanation under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C admitted the quarrel
ensued between the Accused and the deceased. Therefore, it is clear
that after the child birth there was a demand on the side of the
Accused that the child has to be gifted with certain jewels as
demanded by them and there was a demand of a sum of Rs.50,000/
for conducting tonsure function of the girl child.
20) However, on careful perusal of evidences available on
record, it is found that P.W.2, in his evidence, deposed that the
brother of the 1st Accused and his mother have deanded a sum of
Rs.10,000/ for belly blessing ceremony and a sum of Rs.50,000/ for
tonsuring the head of the child. P.W.3, in his evidence, deposed that
the 1st Accused and his relatives had left the deceased at her house
by saying the seer articles offered on the 40 th day ceremony of the
child birth is not sufficient. P.W.4, in his evidence, deposed that on
the 40th day function naming ceremony of the child, the Accused and
his relatives have come, though they have offered chain, ring, anklet
and belly chain, the Accused did not accept the same and boycotted
38
the naming ceremony. However, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 in
this regard is not clear as to who has demanded money with whom.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defence, the
above demands are not relating to or in connection with marriage
and therefore, it cannot be said that it is a demand of dowry.
21) However, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
clearly shows that there was unlawful demand on the side of the 1 st
Accused, which was not met out by the family of the deceased to
their expectation, which is the reason for matrimonial discard
between the 1st Accused and the deceased. From the evidence of
P.W.1, it is found even on the date of occurrence, the quarrel was
ensued between the deceased and the 1st Accused in connection with
the gift articles given to the deceased and her child and the gift
which was not given to the 1st Accused. Therefore, it is clear that the
1st Accused harassed the deceased in connection with demand of
money though it could not be termed as dowry demand, it can be
surely state that it is an unlawful demand. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered view of the 1st Accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 498A IPC as he treated his wife with
cruelty for meeting the unlawful demand of money. Since there is no
clear evidence available on record to show that there was demand
made by the Accused A2 to A4 and therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the Accused A2 to A4 are entitled to benefits of
doubts and acquits them from the charge u/s. 498A against them.
39
22) Apart from that, after the said phone calls between
between P.W.1, PW2, the deceased and Accused 1 and 2, from the
evidences available on record, it is found that the 2 nd Accused
informed P.W.1 that there was a fire accident in their house.
Immediately, thereafter, P.W.1 to P.w4 rushed to the house of the
Accused and found that the body of the deceased was taken to
Government Hospital, Melur. In the Government Hospital, they
have seen the body of the deceased in a charred condition.
Thereafter, the mother of the deceased who is no more now, lodged
Ex.P.12 complaint with the Melur Police Station at about 5.00 p.m.
23) However, it was contended by the learned counsel for
the defence that the police visited the place of occurrence even prior
to the occurrence. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is
clear that the S.I. of police has visited the place of occurrence at
around 12.00 noon and the Inspector of Police and Deputy
Superintendent of Police have also visited the place of occurrence,
but the complaint was lodged only at about 5.00 p.m and therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the defence, the prosecution has
suppressed the earlier information relating to the above occurrence.
However, on perusal of evidence of P.W18 the Sub Inspector of
Police, it is found he heard information relating to the death of the
deceased when he was in patrol in connection with Ramzan and has
visited the place of occurrence followed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidharth
40
Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. NCT Delhi reported in (2010) 6 SCC
1, held that Cryptic Telephonic Message does not amount to First
Information and the police can get the first information in the place
of occurrence itself. Therefore, this Court found that the above
contention of the learned counsel for the defence is liable to be
rejected.
24) Further, it is contended by the defence that P.W.1, in
his cross examination, claimed that he was examined by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, which was reduced into writing in which
he has signed. The said admission makes it clear that the complaint
was obtained from P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 in her cross examination
admitted that in the place of occurrence itself the police have
examined P.W.2, reduced her statement in written and obtained
signature. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defence contended
that the earlier information given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
suppressed and Ex.P.12 complaint was fabricated in a later point of
time and the same was forwarded to the Court with a delay of 17.00
hours. However, on careful perusal of cross examination of P.W.1
and P.W.2, they did not say at what time they have given such
information. From the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it could
not be make out whether the informations signed by them are
anterior in point of time than Ex.P.12 complaint. Therefore, the
above contention of the learned counsel for the defence that the
41
prosecution has suppressed the earlier information cannot be

countenanced.
25) Further, from the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor Murali
Paulkannan, it is found that the body of the deceased was taken to
the Government Hospital, Melur on 9.8.2013 at 1.00 p.m. and he
declared the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the
defence contended that the Accident Register recorded by P.W.13
was not produced before this Court. On careful perusal of cross
examination of P.W.13, it is found that the defence has not raised
any objection or did not put any questions relating to non production
of Accident Register. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the non production of Accident Register is not fatal to the case
of the prosecution.
26) Further, from the evidence of P.W.16 Arumugam, it is
found that since the death of the deceased was occurred within 7
years from the date of marriage, he has conducted inquest on the
body of the deceased on 10.8.2013 at the Mortuary of Melur
Government Hospital. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
defence that the inquest report said to have prepared by P.W.16
Arumugam was not produced before this Court. It is true that the
inquest report was not forwarded to this Court by the prosecution. It
was not made clear that as to why it was not forwarded to the Court.
Further, the inquest report is relating to the apparent cause of the
death of the deceased. Though the inquest report was not forwarded
42
to the Court, the Revenue Divionsal Officer who has conducted

inquest has submitted his Ex.P.10 preliminary report, wherein he
has clearly stated that the death was occurred due to demand of
dowry. P.W.16 though in his preliminary report stated that the
deceased have died due to self immolation, he has stated furhter in
his preliminary report whether the death of the deceased was suicide
or homicide, it has to be investigated by the police. Further, he in his
preliminary report directed the police to conduct investigation
relating to the telephone calls made between the deceased and the
witnesses. From that it is clear that the opinion of the Revenue
Divisonal Office that the deceased has committed suicide by setting
fire by herself is not a final one and it is subjected to the
investigation to be done by the police.
27) Further, P.W.17 Arumugam Nayinar, the another

Revenue Divisional Officer, has forwarded his final report to the
Court, which was marked as Ex.P.11. P.W.17 has also in his report
opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to demand of
dowry. P.W.17 in his final report stated that in the Post Mortem
Certificate received by him, it was opined by the doctor that “ The
deceased would appear to have died of extensive superficial burns of
about 100% ” From that the learned counsel for the defence
contended that in the Post Mortem Certificate forwarded to P.W.17
Revenue Divisional Officer, the doctors have opined that the
deceased would appear to died of extensive superficial burns of about
43
100%. However, in the Post Mortem report filed before this Court, it
was not mentioned that “the deceased would appear to have died of
extensive superficial burns of about 100% ” But, it was mentioned
that the death was occurred due to Asphyxia due to compression of
neck. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the defence, the
Post Mortem Certificate forward to the Revenue Divisional Officer is
suppressed by the prosecution and Ex.P.9 Post Mortem Certificate
was fabricated in order to implicate the Accused herein in the above
case. It is true that P.W.17 in his Ex.P.11 Final Report stated that in
the Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased, it was mentioned that
the deceased would appear to died of extensive superficial burns of
about 100%. However, on careful perusal of Ex.P.11, it is found that
in reference No.3, it was mentioned that Post Mortem Report
No.83/2013, which was received at the office of Revenue Divisional
Officer on 12.8.2013. On careful perusal of Ex.P.9 Post Mortem
Certificate, it is found that the said Post Mortem is in relation to
Post Mortem Report No.83/2013, which was prepared by P.W.15 Dr.
Velmurugan and Dr. SenthilKumar on 10.8.2013. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the defence that there are two
Post Mortem Report is not true. Even though the defence claimed
that there are two Post Mortem Reports, on careful perusal of cross
examination of P.W.15 Dr. Velmurugan, it is found that it is not
suggested to P.W.15 that they have prepared two Post Mortem
Reports in the above case. The report of P.W.17 is not substantive
44
evidence relating to Post Mortem examination. Even Ex.P.9 Post

Mortem Certificate is not substantive evidence of the Post Mortem
examination. But, the evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Velmurugan alone is
the substantial evidence of Post Mortem examination conducted by
him. Ex.P.9 is only corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the
evidence of doctor P.W.15. Therefore, in the absence of materials to
show that there is yet another Post Mortem Report is available
except Ex.P.9 Post Mortem Certificate. It cannot be said that the
evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Velmurugan is tainted one.
28) P.W.15 doctor in his evidence clearly deposed that he
conducted Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found
3 x 3 c.m. anti mortem injury on the right forehead. Further, P.W.15
has deposed that during the Post Mortem examination he found that
the body of the deceased has shown pugilistic attitude i.e. boxing
procedure. Normally the pugilistic effect would occur only if the body
is subjected to higher temperature. If it is an anti mortem burning, if
the deceased had undergone such a higher temperature in her body,
she would not have sit in a particular place. It is a normal conduct of
any person who sets fire to herself, wander around seeking for help
or trying to put off fire. However, on perusal of Ex.P.11 Observation
Magazer, it is found that the body was found in the bed room in a
sitting position. Except the body nothing was burned in the said
room which also clearly shows that the burning is not anti mortem
burning but, Post Mortem burning.
45
29) Further, the tongue of the deceased was protruding.
Further, the hair of the deceased on her head was not burning.
Apart from that the hyoid bone has fracture on its left side. There is
no soot particles found in trachea. From the above findings in the
Post Mortem, it is clear that the death is not by self immolation or
not by anti mortem burning. The death was occurred only due to
Asphyxia and that is the reason why the tongue was protruding out
from the mouth of the deceased and the hyoid bone had a fracture on
its left side. The protruding of mouth, the fracture on the hyoid bone
coupled with the fact that the soot particles were not found in the
trachea makes it very clear that the death was only due to
strangulation and not by anti mortem burning. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered view that the death of the deceased is a homicide
one and not a suicide one.
30) Further, the learned counsel for the defence pointed
out certain lapses on the part of the investigation that the plastic
can and the dress materials were said to have recovered from the
place of occurrence were not produced before this Court. Apart from
that the Investigation Officer has committed yet another blunder in
the case. It is clear that the jewels worn by the deceased was
sticked to her chest after melting and the ear studs were also found
with smokes. Post Mortem Constable has clearly admitted in his
cross examination that he recovered the above articles from the
deceased and handed over to the Investigation Officer. However,
46
the said material objects were not produced before this Court. The
call details and cell phone belonged to the deceased were not
forwarded to the Court. The sticking jewels were handed over to
P.W.1, those jewels whether the jewels recovered from the custody
of the Accused, based on his alleged confession which was marked
as M.O.1 to M.O.7. There is no explanation on the side of the
prosecution as to what happened to the jewels found in the body of
the deceased and ear stud which were recovered from the body. The
Investigation Officer is the one who has to accounts for it. Apart
from that the Accident Register said to have recorded by the Doctor
who admitted the body of the deceased was not produced before this
Court. Though the S.I. of police who visited the place of occurrence,
in his evidence deposed that he caused the photos of the deceased
taken. The said photos were suppressed before this Court and the
photographer who have taken those photos was not examined
before this Court. According to the prosecution, the gold jewels
recovered from the custody of the Accused were appraised by an
Appraiser and he was also not examined before this Court. It is true
that there are certain lapses on the part of the Investigation
Officers in the above case, however, the said lapses will not inure
any benefits to the Accused due to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case. However, such kind of lapses cannot be
allowed to happen in the case of this nature. Hence, a copy of the
judgement is ordered to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police,
47
Madurai and to the Secretary, Home Department for taking

suitable actions against the erring officials.
31) Point Nos.2 and 3:
It is an admitted case that the deceased was set fire in
the bed room of the house where the 1st Accused and the deceased
were living. It is elicited by the defence that the 1 st Accused is living
with his wife in the upstairs, on the western side. The Accused 2 & 3
are residing in the upstairs on the eastern side. The 4 th Accused is
living in the north faced house. The Accused A2 and A3 were living
in the upstairs of 4th Accused. As contended by the learned counsel
for the defence, there is no direct evidence projected on the side of
the prosecution. The case of the prosecution hangs on a single but
strong circumstance that the deceased was found dead at the bed
room of the house where the deceased was living with the 1 st
Accused. It is nobody's case that some third person entered into the
house of the deceased and caused her death.
32) As found supra, on the fateful day there was a quarrel
between the deceased and the 1st Accused in connection with the gift
offered by P.W.1 to his sister on the occasion of Ramzan which was
admitted by the 1st Accused also. After that quarrel what happened
next is exclusively within the knowledge of the 1 st Accused. The 1st
Accused in his explanation u/s. 313(1)(b) of Cr.p.c. has made an
attempt to explain some by saying he has gone for purchasing meat
48
and when he returned only came to know that his wife has self
immolated. However, from the materials available on record, it is
found that it is not a case of suicide. But, it is the case of homicide.
Therefore, it is clear that the explanation offered by the 1 st Accused
in his 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is nothing but a false one. Though there is no
eye witness to the occurrence, the 1st Accused who is living with the
deceased in the upstairs had quarrel with her soon before her death
on the said day has to explain as to how the deceased was murdered
by strangulation. The absence of explanation and offering wrong
explanation clearly implicates the Accused herein and none else. No
other probability were projected by the defence to show that the
death of the deceased would not occurred in any manner other than
the manner suggested by the prosecution. In State of Maharashtra
Vs. Suresh 2000 1 SCC 471, it has been held that when the attention
of the Accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him
in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a
false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link
for completing the chain of circumstances. The 1st Accused being the
husband of the deceased who has offered no explanation, but a
wrong explanation is found to be guilty of the offence of murder of
his wife. Further, the 1st Accused who was present in the house and
in the absence of any material to show that a third party has come
into the house and committed the offence, this Court is driven to an
inescapable conclusion that the 1st Accused is the one who murdered
49
his wife and in order to screen his guilt has burned the body of the
deceased. Therefore, the 1st Accused is found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sectionss. 302 IPC and 201 IPC.
33) On careful perusal of evidences available on record, it is
found that there is no iota of evidence is available to show that

Accused A2 to A4 were present either at the time of quarrel or
subsequent to that. From the evidence of P.W.6., it is clear that the
2nd Accused was away from the place of occurence at the time of
occurence as he has gone to the house of P.W.6 with her daughter to
give sweets. Further, the evidence of P.W.5 Mookan, it is found that
the mother of the 1st Accused, came from her house situate on the
north by saying “ Inah/ mk;kh “ also makes it clear that the 4th
Accused is not also available at the time of occurence in the place of
occurence. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the
Accused A2 to A4 are entitled to the benefits of doubts. Therefore
this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the Accused A2 to A4 are guilty of the offence punishable
under section 302 IPC r/w. S.34 IPC. Further, as found supra, since
there is no evidence available on record to show that the Accused A2
to A4 were present in the place of occurrence at the time of
occurrence and therefore, the offence charged u/s. 201 IPC is also not
proved against them.
34) In the result, the 1st Accused is found guilty of the

offences punishable u/s. 498A, 302 and 201 IPC. The Accused A2 to
50
A4 are not found guilty of the offences punishable u/s. 498A, 302
r/w.34 and 201 IPC. The conviction and acquittal of the Accused are
recorded u/s. 235(i) Cr.P.C.
Sd/S. Karthikeyan
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Madurai. (FAC)
51
Point No.4
35) After recording the conviction of the 1st Accused, the
1st Accused was questioned about the sentence to be imposed on him
for which he replied as follows:or which he replied as follows:
" For the offence punishable u/s. 498A IPC he replied
as follows:
ehd; jtW VJk; bra;atpy;iy. eP';fs; jhd; ghh;j;J

Kot[ bra;a ntz;Lk;.
For the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC he replied as
follows:
ehd; vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy. ghh;j;J bra;a[';fs;. ehnd

kpft[k; f#;lg;gLfpnwd;.
For the offence punishable u/s. 201 IPC he replied as
follows:
eP';fns ghh;j;J brhy;Y';fs;.. "
The learned Special Public Prosecutor heard on the sentence. The
learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the Accused herein
has murdered his own wife and in order to screen the offence, he has
burned the body of the deceased. Hence, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor prays for maximum punishment to the Accused. The
learned Counsel for the defence submitted that the Accused herein
has nervous disorder and he is undergoing treatment for the same.
The Accused is facing problem in speaking also. The Accused is a
52
first time offender and he did not commit the offence intentionally
Therefore, he prays for minimum punishment to the Accused.
36 ) In view of the fact that the charge against the Accused
under Section 302 I.P.C is proved which is punishable with death.
This court has to draw a balance sheet of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances as indicated in the judgement of the Apex Court in
Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980 2 SCC 684) and Machhi
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1983 3 SCC 470 470)
In Bachan Singh V.State of Punjab, the Apex Court held thus:
''204. Dr.Chitaley has suggested these mitigating
factors:
Mitigating circumstances: In the exercise of its
discretion in the above cases, the Court shall take
in to account the following circumstances:
1. That the offence was committed under the
influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance.
2. The age of the Accused. If the Accused is
young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death
3. The probability that the Accused would not
commit criminal acts of violence as would
constitute a continuing threat to society.
4. The probability that the Accused can be reformed
and rehabilitated
(The State shall be evidence prove that the Accused
does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above. )
5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the
Accused believed that he was morally justified in
committing the offence.
6. That the Accused acted under the duress or
53
domination of another person.
7. That the condition of the Accused showed that he
was mentally defective and that the said defect
impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality
of his conduct.”
In Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court propounded thus:
'' Death Sentence
31. Having dealt with the appeals on merits from
the standpoint of proof of guilt and validity of
otherwise of the order of conviction, we now come
face to face with the problem indicated when the
curtain was lifted, namely, the application of the
rarest of rare cases rule to the facts of individual
cases in the context of the relevant guidelines.
Some reflections on the question of death penalty
may appropriately be made before we tackle the
said question in the perspective of the present
group of appeals.
32. The reasons why the community as a whole

does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected
in '' death sentence in no case'' doctrine are not far
to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic
edifice is constructed on the foundation of
''reverence for life'' principle. When a member of
the community violates this very principle by
killing another member, the society may not feel
itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine.
Secondly, it has to be realised that every member
of the community is able to live with safety without
his or her own life being endangered because of the
54
protective arm of the community and on account of
the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of
the rule of law and the fear of being brought to
book operates as a deterrent to those who have no
scruples in killing others if it suits their ends.
Every member of the community owes a debt to the
community for this protection. When ingratitude is
shown instead of gratitude by killing a member of
the community which protects the murderer
himself from being killed, or when the community
feels that for the sake of self preservation the killer
has to be killed, the community may well withdraw
the protection by sanctioning the death penalty.
But the community will not do so in every case. It
may do so ( in rarest of rare cases ) when its
collective conscience is so shocked that it will
expect the holders of the judicial power centre to
inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal
opinion as regards desirability or otherwise off
retaining death penalty. The community may
entertain such a sentiment when the crime is
viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the
manner of commission of the crime, or the
antisocial or abhorrent nature of the crime, such
as for instance:
1. Manner of Commission of Murder
When the murder is committed in an extremely
brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community. For instance.
(1) When the house of the victim is set aflame with
the end in view to roast him alive in the house,
(ii) When the victim is subjected to inhuman acts
of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or
her death,
55
(iii) When the body of the victim is cut into pieces
or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner
II. Motive for commission of, murder
When the murder is committed for a motive which
evinces total depravity and meanness. For
instance when (a) a hired assassin commits murder
for the sake of money or reward; (b) a cold blooded
murder is committed with a deliberate design
in order to inherit property or to gain control over
property of a ward or a person under the control of
the murderer or visavis whom the murderer is in
a dominating position or in a position of trust; (c) a
murder is committed in the course for betrayal of
the motherland.
III. Antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the
crime.
(a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or minority community etc., is committed not
for personal reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath. For instance when such a
crime is committed in order to terrorize such
persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place
or in order to deprive them of, or benefits conferred
on them with a view to reverse past injustices and
in order to restore the social balance.
(b) In cases of bride burning and what are known
as dowrydeaths or when murder is committed in
order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on account
of infatuation.
IV. Magnitude of crime
When the crime is enormous in proportion. For
instance when multiple murders say of all or
almost all the members of a family or a large
number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.
56
V. Personality of victim of murder
When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child
who could not have or has not provided even an
excuse, much less a provocation, for murder, (b) a
helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by
old age or infirmity, (c) when the victim is a person
visavis whom the murderer is in a position of
domination or trust, (d) when the victim is a
public figure generally loved and respected by the
community for the services rendered by him and
the murder is committed for political or similar
reasons other than personal reasons.
33. In this background the guidelines indicated in
Bachan Singhs case(supra) will have to be culled
out and applied to the facts of each individual case
where the question of imposing of death sentence
arises. The following propositions emerge from
Bachan Singhs case:
(i)The extreme penalty of death need not he
inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme
cupability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the
circumstances of the offender also require to be
taken into consideration along with the
circumstances of the crime.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. In other words death
sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the
relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided
and only provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
circumstances;
57
(iv) A balancesheet of aggravating and

mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and
in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be
accorded full weightage and a just balance has to
be struck between the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances before the option is
exercised.
34. In order to apply these guidelines inter
alia, the following questions may be asked and
answered.
(a) Is there something uncommon about
the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment
for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime
such that there is no alternative but to impose
death sentence even after according maximum
weightage to the mitigating circumstances which
speak in favour of the offender ?
35. If upon taking an overall global view of
all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid
proposition and taking into account the answers to
the questions posted here in above, the
circumstances of the case are such that death
sentence is warranted, the Court would proceed to
do so.''
37 ) By applying the above principles set out in the cases cited
supra, this court is of the considered view that the case in hand does
not fall in the category of rarest of rare case which warrants death
punishment. In this Case no direct evidence is available to prove the
guilt of the Accused. The Accused, while committing the offence, did
not act more cruelly than what is necessary or he did not show any
extreme brutality. The Accused is a first offender and there is no
58
material placed on the side of the prosecution that there is no scope
for rehabilitation of the Accused and he will remain a menace to the
society and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
Accused deserved only a lesser punishment.
38) In the result, the 1st Accused herein is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced
him R.I. for 2 years and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/ in default he
shall undergo 6 months S.I. The 1st Accused herein is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him
an imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/ in default
he shall undergo 1 year S.I. The 1 st Accused herein is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him
to undergo 5 years R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs. 3000/ in default
he shall undergo 9 months S.I. Further, it is directed that he shall
undergo all the above punishments concurrently. The 1 st Accused is
entitled to set off the period already undergone by him in the prison
if the life imprisonment is commuted to a sentence lesser than the
life imprisonment by the appropriate authority. The Accused A2 to
A4 are acquitted from the offences punishable u/s. 498A, 302 r/w. 34
and 201 IPC. The properties M.O.1 to M.O.7 golden jewels remanded
in RPR No.327/2013 of Judicial Magistrate, Melur were already in
the interim custody of its owner, as per order of Judicial Magistrate,
Melur in Crl.M.P.No.5056/2013 dated: 16.8.2013, and the same is
59
restored to his custody. The bail bond executed by the Accused are
hereby canceled.
Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 24th day of December
2018. Sd/S. Karthikeyan
Sessions Judge,
Madurai. (FAC)
Prosecution side witnesses:
P.W.1 Nagoor Gani
P.W.2 Abdula Beevi
P.W.3 Abuthakeer
P.W.4 Shakul Hameed
P.W.5 Mookan
P.W.6 Noor Mohammed
P.W.7 Seeni Kathar
P.W.8 Bakeer Masthan (Hostile)
P.W.9 Subbu lakshmi (Hostile)
P.W.10 Syed
P.W.11 Kannan
P.W.12 Moorthy
P.w.13 Dr. Murali Paulkannan
P.w.14 Abdul Vahith
P.w.15 Dr. Velmurugan
P.w.16 Arumugam (the then Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai)
P.w.17 Arumuga Nayinar (the then Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai)
P.w.18 Ramakrishnan.(the then S.I. of Police, Melur)
60
P.w.19 Ashok Kumar (the then Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division )
P.w.20 Mangaleswaran (the then Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Melur Sub Division )
Prosecution side exhibits:
Ex.P1 Signature of Pw.10 in Athatchi
Ex.P 2 Signature of Pw.10 in Observation mahazar
Ex.P3 Signature of P.w.11 in the confession statement
of 1st Accused.
Ex.P6 Signature of Pw.12 in the confession statement
of 1st Accused.
Ex.P.7 Signature of Pw.14 in Athatchi
Ex.P.8 9.8.2013 Observation Magazer
Ex.P.9 10.8.2013 Postmortem certificate
Ex.P.10 10.8.2013 Preliminary Report of RDO
Ex.P.11 10.2.2014 Final report of RDO.
Ex.P.12 9.8.2013 Complaint
Ex.P.13 9.8.2013 Firt Information Report.
Ex.P.14 9.8.2013 Rough sketch
Ex.P.15 9.8.2013 Athatchi (For white colour can and burnt
clothes)
Ex.P.16 12.8.2013 Admitted portion in confession statement of A1.
Ex.P.17 12.8.2013 Athatchi.(M.O.1 to M.O.7)
Ex.P.18 12.8.2013 Form 95.
Ex.P.19 11.8.2013 Alteration report
61
Defence side witness: Nil
Defence side documents : Nil
Material objects marked in this case :
M.O.1 Golden Governor Malai 1. (weight about 49.940 gram).

M.O.2 Necklace 1. (weight about 36.280 gram).
M.O.3 Golden Stud with Mottel one pair.(weight about 22.500
gram).
M.O.4 Golden Bangles four. (weight about 39.950 gram).
M.O.5 Baby golden rings 13.
M.O.6 Big Size golden Rings 2. (weight about 9.460 gram).
M.O.7 Silver anklet one pair. (weight about 161 gram)
Sd/S. Karthikeyan
Sessions Judge,
Madurai. (FAC)
// True Copy//
62
Madurai
Sessions Case No.10/2016
Draft/Fair Judgment
Date : 24.12.2018
63

302 Judgement Conviction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

302 Judgement Conviction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

S. 302 r/w. 34 IPC – Punishment for

S. 201 IPC – Causing disappearance of

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur has taken

4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the

Mohammed on 7.7.2010. At the time of marriage, 33 sovereign of

available. At that time, the President of Jamath Abdul Kadar,

taken to the house of the 1 st Accused. Within one week there from,

P.W.4 Shahul Hameed, in his evidence, deposed that

mk;kh”. Peoples were assembled at the house of the 1 st Accused.

tea at her shop. The persons who are at Sandhaipettai shouted “

signature in the confession statement of the 1st Accused and in

identified the 2nd signature in Athatchi and Observation Magazer,

5. The incriminating materials and circumstances

a written submission under Section 314 Cr.P.C. which was also

connection. Thereafter, in order to tonsure the child, the Accused

harassed the deceased on demand of dowry from the date of her

the evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Velmurugan, who has conducted Post

Court Cases 654, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

prosecution has suppressed the earlier information cannot be

to the Court, the Revenue Divionsal Officer who has conducted

27) Further, P.W.17 Arumugam Nayinar, the another

evidence relating to Post Mortem examination. Even Ex.P.9 Post

Madurai and to the Secretary, Home Department for taking

found that there is no iota of evidence is available to show that

34) In the result, the 1st Accused is found guilty of the

ehd; jtW VJk; bra;atpy;iy. eP';fs; jhd; ghh;j;J

ehd; vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy. ghh;j;J bra;a[';fs;. ehnd

eP';fns ghh;j;J brhy;Y';fs;.. "

32. The reasons why the community as a whole

(iv) A balance­sheet of aggravating and

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

M.O.1 Golden Governor Malai 1. (weight about 49.940 gram).

You might also like

(iv) A balancesheet of aggravating and