SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sundaram vs State Represented By on 4 March, 2020

CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.03.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

Crl RC.No.153 of 2014

Sundaram …Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by
Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station, Vellore
Vellore District.
…Respondent

Prayer:

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment and sentence
passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,
Vellore District in Crl.A.No.31/2013 by judgment dated 18.12.2013
and confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned
judicial Magistrate, No.I, Vellore, Vellore District in C.C.No.290/2011
dated 06.04.2013 and set aside the judgment dated 18.12.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr. E. Kannadasan
For Respondent : Ms. S. Thankira
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

1/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

ORDER

The first accused in CC No.290 of 2011 on the file of the judicial

Magistrate, No.I, Vellore, is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Revision Petitioner (A1) and Gnanasambandam (A2) and

Kannamani (A3) were charge sheeted by the police. particularly, A1

had been charge sheeted under 498-A, 495 and 406 read with 109 of

IPC.

3. In support of the prosecution case P.Ws.1 to 5 were

examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On the side of the

accused, no oral and documentary evidence and no M.O. was

marked.

4. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the respective parties, the trial court convicted A1 under

Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for four weeks and convicted A2 and A3 under

498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for

six months and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each, indefault, to undergo

2/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks and convicted A1 for the

offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four

weeks and convicted A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 406

read with 109 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each,

in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks. The

accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 495 IPC.

5. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by

the trial court, the appeal had been preferred by the Accused A1 to

A3 in CA No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District and

Sessions Court, Vellore. The appellate court, on an appreciation of

the materials available on record, allowed the appeal preferred by A1

to A3 in part and accordingly, sustained the conviction and sentence

imposed on A1 under 498-A IPC and set aside the conviction

imposed on A1 under Section 406 IPC and held that A1 is not guilty

of the offence under Section 406 IPC. As far as A2 and A3 are

concerned, the appellate court had set aside the conviction and

sentence imposed on them under Section 498-A IPC and Section 406

read with 109 IPC and resultantly acquitted them of the aforesaid

offences.

3/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

6. Impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him by

the Courts below under Section 498-A IPC, the first accused has filed

this present Criminal Revision.

7. From the materials placed on record, it is found that the wife

of the Revision Petitioner / accused namely, Kavitha (P.W.2) is a

blind person and it is seen that the marriage between the Revision

Petitioner and P.W.2 was solemnized on 18.11.2010 and P.W.2 being

a blind person, had to suffer a lot to carry on her daily chores and

according to the prosecution, the accused developed a hostile attitude

against P.W.2 and started ill treating her both physically and mentally

by consuming alcohol for no fault of her and despite the subsistence

of marriage between the accused and P.W.2, it is found that

according to the prosecution, the accused had married one Omanna

and through her begotten one male child and accordingly it is the

case of the prosecution that the accused had caused cruelty on his

wife as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC and instead of

amicably living with her, particularly when she had lost her vision,

according to the prosecution, inter alia, the accused has committed

the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Considering the evidence of

4/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of P.W.2 as well as

the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, it is found that the accused had been

abusing P.W.2 as blind person and ill treating her and almost daily

used to consume liquor and picked up quarrel at late night hours with

P.W.2 and thereby caused harassment and when P.W.2 is found to be

a physically handicapped person, particularly having no vision, in

such view of the matter, the accused having contracted marriage with

her, is obliged to maintain her and on the other hand, the accused is

found to have inflicted cruelty by ignoring her and also abusing her

pointing to her vision impairment and disability as well as causing her

both physical and mental cruelty by consuming liquor and in such

view of the matter, the courts below had rightly found that the

accused had inflicted cruelty upon P.W.2 with the aim of grabbing

money from her and also by making unwarranted allegation against

her pointing to her disability and in such view of the matter, I am of

the considered opinion that the courts below are wholly justified in

upholding the conviction of the first accused under Section 498-A

IPC.

8. As above pointed out, for the offence Under Section 498-A

IPC, the accused had been sentenced to undergo Rigorous

5/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks. The

appellate court has also, noting the cruelty faced by P.W.2, who on

account of her loss of vision is unable to live peacefully, determined

that the sentence imposed on the accused is reasonable and not

liable to be interfered with. I do not find any reason to deviate from

the abovesaid determination of the first appellate court. In such view

of the matter, the argument put forth by the counsel for the accused

that this Court should show leniency in sentencing the accused under

Section 498-A IPC, does not merit acceptance .

9. In conclusion, this Criminal Revision fails and is accordingly

dismissed. If the accused had not complied with the sentence, the

Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused to

undergo the sentence imposed on him as per law.

04.03.2020

Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
bga

6/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

Copy to

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore, Vellore District

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Vellore, Vellore District

7/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
CRL RC.No. 153 of 2014

T.RAVINDRAN,J.

bga

Crl RC.No.153 of 2014

04.03.2020

8/8

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