Balasubramaniam vs State By on 21 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2014

Balasubramaniam
S/o.Arumugham … Petitioner/A1
-Vs-
State by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (Central),
Coimbatore. … Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records and set-aside the judgement of conviction dated 10.01.2014 made in C.A.No.149 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.10 of 2013 on 19.09.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramamoorthy

For Respondent : Mr.R.Sekar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

*****

ORDER

This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of Courts below convicting petitioner/A1 for offence u/s.498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d 6 months S.I. for offence u/s.498-A IPC.

2. Prosecution case is that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner/A1 loved each other and due to their relationship, the de-facto complainant became pregnant. On 24.02.2010 the petitioner/A1 married the de-facto complainant in a Temple. A boy was born on 24.06.2010 and thereafter, the accused used abusive language and ill-treated her, casting doubts on her chastity. When the de-facto complainant demanded that their marriage be registered, both the accused have threatened to kill her and her son, if she again raises such demand. A case in Crime No.24/2011 on the file of respondent has been registered for offences u/s.498-A and 506(ii) IPC. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was tried in C.C.No.10 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.

3. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 6 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 19.09.2013, while acquitting the A2/mother of Revision Petitioner/A1 for offences under Sections 498A and 506(ii) IPC, convicted petitioner/A1 for offence u/s.498-A IPC and acquitted the petitioner/A1 for offence u/s 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d 6 months S.I. There against, petitioner/A1 preferred C.A.No.149 of 2013 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 10.01.2014. Hence, this revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for respondent. Perused the records.

5. The prosecution case was that the petitioner/A1 and PW-1 had an extra marital affair, owing to which, PW-1 conceived. As the petitioner/A1 failed to marry her as promised, she approached the police and subsequently, a marriage was performed. A child was born and both mother and child were maintained by the petitioner in a separate dwelling. The petitioner/A1 had failed to take up residence with them. The evidence of PW-2 mother of PW-1, PW-3 the owner of the house where PW-1 resided, PW-4 a neighbor, only is to the effect that petitioner/A1 used to visit PW-1. PW-6 has stated that she does not know PW-1 nor any happenings. PW-1 admits to petitioner/A1 never having denied the parentage of the child and that her intent in preferring the complaint was that he take up residence with her. Learned counsel for petitioner brings notice a subsequent development of respondent/complainant having suffered a decree of divorce from one she has married on the ground of suppression of earlier marriage under judgment in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Udhagamandalam (FTC) on 13.04.2016. Such development need not concern us.

6. In the circumstances, conviction for offence under Section 498A IPC ill founded.

7. This Court has required Jurisdictional police to produce PW-1/Complainant before this Court towards making some provision for her son born to the petitioner/A1.

8. The petitioner is present before this Court. On instructions, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that PW-1 in this case is not traceable.

9. In the circumstances, this Court would leave it open to PW-1/de-facto complainant to seek such relief for herself, as also her minor son as is available to her in law.

10. The Criminal Revision Case shall stand allowed. The judgment dated 10.01.2014 made in C.A.No.149 of 2013 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.10 of 2013 on 19.09.2013, shall stand set aside. Petitioner/A1 is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.

21.09.2017

Index:yes/no

Internet:yes/no

kmi

To

1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.

2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,
Coimbatore.

3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (Central),
Coimbatore.

4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

C.T.SELVAM, J

kmi

Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2014

21.09.2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *