SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arumugam vs State Represented By on 4 July, 2019

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 04.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.714 of 2011

Arumugam … Petitioner

Vs

1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
Crime No.48/1994.

2.Paramasivam

3.Sangilimuthu

4.Mariyayee

5.Natarajan

6.Thiayagarajan … Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment passed in S.C.No.182 of
1995, dated 05.04.2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Trichirappalli.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian

For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 to R6 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumar

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

ORDER

One Sakunthala-Daughter of the revision petitioner died on

14.01.1994 due to self immolation. In this regard, Crime No.48 of

1994 was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi

Police Station. Investigation was taken up and final report was filed

against Paramasivam son-in-law of the revision petitioner and four

others. The final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate,

Lalgudi. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 304(B) and

498(A) of IPC was taken and committed to the Principal Sessions

Court and made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Tiruchirppalli in S.C.No.182 of 1995. The accused pleaded not

guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution

examined as many as 15 witnesses and also marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P16. A1-Paramasivam alone was convicted for the offence under

Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC. The other accused were

acquitted. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed

Crl.R.C.No.140 of 1999. This Court allowed the revision case and

remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the

same, the acquitted accused preferred SLP before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

However, the observation was made that the trial Court shall

consider the case fresh un-influenced observations made by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

High Court in the order of remand. Even after such remand, the

case once again ended in acquittal, vide Judgment dated

05.04.2011. This is under challenge in this revision case.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned

counsel appearing for the accused pointed out that aggrieved by the

Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him, A1-

Paramasivam filed Criminal Appeal No.1012 of 1998 before this

Court. This Court, by order dated 27.03.2007 held that A1-

Paramasivan was guilty only in respect of the offences under

Section 498A of IPC and not 304B of IPC. The conviction and

sentence imposed under Section 304B of IPC was set aside. A1-

Paramasivan was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment

and the same is said to have been fully undergone by him. This

Court posed a specific question to the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner as to whether the Judgment dated 27.03.2007 made

in Criminal Appeal No.1012 of 1998 was put to challenge before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that there was no such

challenge and that it became final. In view of the Judgment dated

27.03.2007 passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.10112 of 1998, I am

of the view that this revision case will not lie. Therefore, the

revision case filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

3.The learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents drew my attention to Section 393 of Cr.P.C., states

that Judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Court upon an

appeal shall be final, except in the case provided for in section 377,

section 378, sub-section (4) of section 384 of Cr.P.C. In this case,

the Judgement of acquittal was passed by the High Court.

Therefore, in view of Section 395 of Cr.P.C., the present revision

case will not lie. The criminal revision case is dismissed as not

maintainable.

04.07.2019

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi

To

1. The Inspector of Police,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.

2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.

Crl.R.C(MD)No.714 of 2011
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation