SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dass vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 September, 2019

Crl.RC.No.97/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 17.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.RC.No.97/2016

Dass .. Petitioner /
Appellant / Accused-1

Vs

State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tindivanam .. Respondent /
Complainant

Prayer: Petition filed under section 397 r/w 401 of SectionCr.P.C, praying to call for the
records in C.A.No.26/2011 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tindivanam and to set aside the order passed in C.A.No.26/2011 dated
20.11.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in
CC.No.460/2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam
dated 03.05.2011 and acquit the petitioner/accused -1 of the charges framed
against him.

For Petitioner : Mr..S.Karthikeyan
For Respondent : M.Mohamed Riyaz, APP

ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/appellant/A-1,

seeking to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.26/2011 on the file of the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, dated 20.11.2015

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in CC.No.460/2009 on the

1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.97/2016

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam dated 03.05.2011 and

against the petitioner/A-1 of the charges framed against him.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner along

with other accused was charged and tried for offence under Section 498 A of

IPC and under Sections 4 Section6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court

acquitted the 3rd and 4th accused from all the charges and convicted the 1 st

and 2nd accused for the offence while acquitting the 1st and 2nd accused for

the charges under Sections 4 Section6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, found the 1st

and 2nd accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and

sentenced the petitioner/A1 to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple

imprisonment and sentenced A2/the mother of the petitioner to undergo 3

months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.498A SectionIPC.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, A2/the mother of the petitioner passed

away and the charges against her got abated. The Appellate court had

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by

the Trial Court, against which the present revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 would submit that even assuming

the entire evidence to be true, the same does not constitute the ingredients

under Section 498 A of IPC, against the petitioner. He would submit that

even as per evidence of PW.1, the allegations are made only against the

mother, father and sister of the petitioner for having demanded 10

sovereigns of jewels and there is no specific allegation that the petitioner had

2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.97/2016

demanded dowry from PW1. Further, there is no evidence that PW1 had

been subjected to cruelty at the hands of the petitioner/A-1 falling within the

explanation to Section 498 A of IPC. The trial Court having acquitted A-3 and

A-4 for the offences under Section 4 and Section6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

ought not to have held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 498 A of

IPC and the trial Court, having disbelieved that there was demand of dowry,

had erred in convicting the petitioner/A-1 for offence under Section 498 A of

IPC on the same set of facts and evidence. He would submit that admittedly,

the marriage is a love marriage and that the marriage took place on

27.08.2004 and the complaint was registered on 09.07.2009. He would also

submit that the brother of PW1 who was examined as PW.5, has not

supported the case of the prosecution. Further no evidence had been let in

by the prosecution as if the petitioner committed acts of cruelty within the

meaning of explanation to cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PW1 had stated

that the other accused have demanded 10 sovereigns of jewellery from PW1

and she had informed to her husband , the petitioner herein who had asked

PW1 to comply with the demand made by the other accused. However, he

would submit that the other accused, viz., A-3 and A-4, are being the father

and sister, had been acquitted by the trial Court and all the accused have

been not found guilty for offence under Section 4 and Section6 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

6. This Court heard learned counsel on either side.

3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.97/2016

7. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence

against the petitioner constitutes for offence under Section 498 A of IPC.

8. It is apposite to refer to Section 498 A is extracted hereunder:

“ 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation —For
the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any
wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the
woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand.

9. I have carefully and consciously gone through the evidence.

10.On perusal of evidence reveals that the demand was made by A-2 to A-4

and not by the petitioner/A1 and that the evidence of PW2 Senkeni, PW3

Kalaivani, PW4 Anbhazagan, PW5 Manogaran do not inspire confidence of

this Court and they are in the nature of hearsay evidence and further, taking

into consideration the evidence of PW-2 there is no whisper of any

allegations of demand of dowry or cruelty made by the petitioner against

PW.1 as meant and required under the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC.

4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.97/2016

11.In view of the same, the criminal revision is allowed and the order passed in

C.A.No.26/2011, by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Tindivanam, dated 20.11.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed in CC.No.460/2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Tindivanam dated 03.05.2011, is set aside. The fine amount if any paid

by the petitioner/appellant/accused-1, shall be returned to the petitioner.

17.09.2019

Web:Yes
jrs
To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam

3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,Tindivanam

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.97/2016

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

jrs

Crl.RC.No.97/2016

17.09.2019

6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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