SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jeevanandham vs State Represented By on 8 July, 2019



DATED: 08.07.2019



Crl.A.(MD)No.106 of 2011

Jeevanandham … Appellant


State represented by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thilagar Thidal (LO),
Karimedu Police Station,
In Cr.No.634/07,
Madurai District. … Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the Judgment passed in S.C.No.357
of 2008, dated 16.03.2011 on the file of the learned Sessions
Court/Mahila Court/ Mahalir Court, Madurai and set aside the same
and acquit the appellant/accused of the charge levelled against him.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkateswaran

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)


The appellant and his parents faced trial in S.C.No.357 of

2008 on the file of the Mahila Court, Madurai, for the offences under

Sections 498A and Section304 (b) of SectionIPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Vide Judgment dated

16.03.2011, A2 and A3 that is parents of the appellant were

acquitted of all the charges. The petitioner was found guilty in

respect of the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and sentenced to

two years rigorous imprisonment and acquitted in respect of the

other charges. He was also fined Rs.5000/-. Challenging the same,

this appeal has been filed.

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

counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he would not

challenge the conviction, having regard to the evidence on record.

He however pleaded for leniency in the matter of punishment. It is

seen that the appellant got married to Deepa @ Banu Priya. A male

child was born on 22.12.2005. The petitioner’s counsel states that

the child is with the appellant alone. The appellant has not

remarried till date. The appellant’s counsel submitted that if the

appellant is sentenced to imprisonment, there will be nobody to

take care of the child. The appellant had spent about 90 days in

prison. Therefore, taking note of the mitigating circumstances,

even while sustaining the conviction imposed on the appellant, the

sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the

appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

3.With this modification in the matter of sentence, this

criminal appeal is partly allowed.

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No


1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thilagar Thidal (LO),
Karimedu Police Station,
Madurai District.

2.The Sessions Court/Mahila Court/ Mahalir Court, Madurai. G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.


Crl.A.(MD)No.106 of 2011


Leave a Reply

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

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