Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2012
1.T.R.Manikandan
2.Ramasamy
3.R.Prema
4.Dr.Jeyanthi
… Petitioners
– Vs –
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
(Crime No.22 of 2005)
.. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and Section401 Cr.P.C., against the
judgment dated 30.04.2012 made in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment dated 16.09.2011
made in SC.No.129 of 2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For respondent : Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
***
1/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated
30.04.2012 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Namakkal, confirmed the judgment dated 16.09.2011 in SC.No.129 of
2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Namakkal.
2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2005 for the
offence punishable under Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
498A r/w 34 and 307 of SectionIPC as against the first petitioner/A1 and Sections 3 and
Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 498A r/w 34 and 307 r/w 109 of SectionIPC as
against the petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 and after completing investigation, laid a
charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal. Since the
offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, Namakkal,
committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. After
taking the case on file in SC.No.129 of 2006, the learned Principal Sessions Judge
made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial
Magistrate), Namakkal for disposal. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief
Judicial Magistrate) after receiving the case and completing the formalities,
framed the charges against the revision petitioners herein. After completing trial,
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the revision petitioners/accused
2/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
have not committed the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
however, the revision petitioners are found guilty for the offence under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and 498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC and convicted them by judgment
dated 16.09.2011 and sentenced them as follows:-
Accused Offence Sentence
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition 6 months Simple Imprisonment
Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,
2 months Simple Imprisonment
498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC One year Simple Imprisonment
A1 and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,
3 months Simple Imprisonment
307 of SectionIPC 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,
6 months Simple Imprisonment
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition 6 months Simple Imprisonment
Act and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,
2 months Simple Imprisonment
A2 to A4
498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC One year Simple Imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,
3 months Simple Imprisonment
The Trial Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said
judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.24 of
2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. After hearing the
arguments advanced on either side and perused the entire materials and
judgment of the trial Court, the learned Principal Sessions Judge found that the
appellants therein/accused have committed the offence as stated by the trial
Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants therein/accused on
3/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
30.04.2012 and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. There against, the
accused filed the present revision before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit
that the offence alleged to have been committed by the first petitioner is a distinct
and different offence and said to have been taken place at Chidambaram and it is
not in furtherance of the one and the same act and it is not in the course of the
same transaction and it is against the provision of Section 218 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and it is a misjoinder of charges. So upholding the conviction
against the first petitioner/A1 by the Appellate Court for the offence under Section
307 of IPC is not sustainable. Ex.P3, the certificate issued by PW-9 would prove
that PW-1 herself has consumed the tablets of 10 mg in the morning in the empty
stomach. The evidence of PW-1 reveals that the tablets were forcibly put into her
mouth by the first petitioner in contra to her statement recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the first petitioner/A1 found guilty for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC, is not sustainable, when there are material contradictions
between the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the
evidence given by PW-9 before the Court. Further, the Doctor has clearly stated
that it is highly impossible and improbable for the first petitioner/A1 to administer
tablets to PW-1 as alleged by her. Both the Courts below failed to consider the
fact that one person cannot forcibly administer 20 tablets against her will when
she forcibly resisted the same. The opinion of the Doctor also would prove that
4/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
PW-1 foisted a false case against the first petitioner regarding the allegation of
administered 20 tablets forcibly against her will. There is absolutely no evidence
to prove that the petitioners/accused demaded dowry in connection or in
consideration of the marriage as defined under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Both the Courts below have failed to consider the legal as well as factual position.
There are material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses regarding the time,
place and the manner of the demand, acceptance and giving gold, cash dowry,
car and other valuable articles. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the
fact that the bride will not constitute as a Dowry and no offence is said to have
been committed by any of the petitioners in demanding Dowry at the time of
marriage. The mandatory provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Rules are not
followed and there is no document produced by the prosecution as per Rule 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Rule to maintain the list of the articles given at the time of
the marriage and it has to be signed by both parties. This case against the
revision petitioners/accused was fabricated by PW-1 after filing the petition for
divorce by the first petitioner herein against PW-1. The complaint was fabricated
with the consultation and deliberation after reading the petition for divorce filed
by the first petitioner. Further, both the Courts have failed to consider the fact
that PW-1 filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.22 of
2005 and the same itself shows that the averments made in the petition to prove
the intention of PW-1 to wreck vengeance against the revision
petitioners/accused. The first petitioner is the husband of PW-1 and the first
5/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
petitioner is working as a Lecturer at Chidambaram Annamalai University and
after marriage, they were living at Chidambaram. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the
parents of the first petitioner/A1 and the fourth petitioner is the only sister of the
first petitioner, who was already married with one Siva, who is a Scientist and she
is living separately in her matrimonial home. The allegations against the
petitioners 2 to 4 are not correct and the prosecution failed to establish the
allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4 and both the Courts below failed to
consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court that the in-
laws cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC when there
is no evidence to show that they caused cruelty. Since the petitioners 2 to 4 are
living separately, the offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC would not attract.
Both the Courts have failed to consider the legal and factual position and wrongly
convicted the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of
SectionIPC. There is no material evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of dowry
in consideration of marriage and therefore, Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is
not attracted. Both the Courts below failed to consider the oral and documentary
evidence and the petition for divorce filed by the first petitioner in HMOP.No.176
of 2005 and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by PW-1 against the
first petitioner in HMOP No.22 of 2005 which clearly shows that all the allegations
levelled in the complaint are subsequent improvement and in order to get the
petition for divorce be dismissed, PW-1 foisted a false case against the revision
petitioners/accused. If at all they demanded dowry and caused mental cruelty
6/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
and also the first petitioner/A1 committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC,
PW-1 ought not to have filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in
HMOP.No.22 of 2005, which clearly shows that there is no dowry demand, cruelty
and there was no attempt to murder. Both the Courts below failed to consider
these facts and wrongly convicted the revision petitioners/accused for the offence
under Section 498A r/w 34 SectionIPC. Though the trial Court acquitted the petitioners 2
to 4 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, it ought to have acquitted them for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and also 498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC. There are material contradictions
between the prosecution witnesses specifically between PW-1 and PW-9 and also
there is an improvement from stage to stage even PWs-1 and 2 and the Doctor’s
evidence also clearly show that it is impossible for administering the tablets
forcibly against the will. The First Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the
evidence independently and only followed the judgment of the trial Court, which
warrants interference. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in
[2003 (3) SCC 227] in support of his contention. At last, the learned Counsel
would submit that since it is a family dispute, the parties are ready to compound
the offence.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondents/State would submit that the marriage between the first petitioner
7/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
and PW-1 was solemnised on 21.02.2005 at Puttaparthi Saibaba Temple.
Thereafter, the reception was held on 27.02.2005 at Namakkal Kongu Vellalar
Marriage Hall. After completion of the ceremonies, both the first petitioner and
PW-1 started to live in the house belongs to one Ganesan Chettiar at VNS Nagar,
Chidambaram. Before marriage, the revision petitioners demanded one kilogram
gold, Rs.10 lakhs and one new Tata Safari Car as dowry in connection with the
said marriage of A1 with PW-1 and the parents of PW-1 also accepted for the
same since PW-1 is the only daughter of her parents. The Court also accepted
that at the time of marriage, the parents of PW-1 provided one kilogram gold, a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, one Tata Safari car and also other household goods worth
about Rs.2,00,000/- without any demand and also spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards marriage expenses. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is not attracted. Subsequent to the marriage, the fourth petitioner
along with petitioners 2 and 3 illegally demanded PW-1 to part with her father’s
monthly income and also persistently demanded money and jewels from PW-1.
On one occasion, while PW-1 was alone in the house, the petitioners 3 and 4
dashed the head of PW-1 against the wall of the house, due to which, PW-1
sustained headache. On 18.06.2005, the petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 intentionally
threatened PW-1 and coerced her at the connivance of the first petitioner to settle
all her properties in the name of the first petitioner/A1, when PW-1 refused for
the same, the fourth petitioner/A4 gave 10 volume tablets and said as if the
properties not transferred, die herself by consuming the sleeping tablets. One of
8/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
the allegations against the petitioners is that while PW-4 came to the house of the
second petitioner with the first petitioner during Aadi 2005, near Namakkal
Anjenayar temple, the petitioners 2 to 4 persistently demanded jewels and case of
Rs.1 lakh and also to transfer her father’s income in their favour. Further, the
charge against the revision petitioners is that while PW-1 lived at matrimonial
house with the first petitioner at Chidambaram, during August 2005, the second
petitioner intentionally abetted A1 to transfer the car, TN 28 P 6161 worth about
Rs.10.5 lakhs in the name of the fourth petitioner herein and on such illegal
demand of transfer, the first petitioner took PW-1 to Namakkal in the Safari Car,
near Srinivasa Store at Mohanur Road, the second petitioner joined with them in a
car and illegally threatened to transfer the car in the name of the fourth
petitioner, when PW-2 refused for the same, she was ill-treated and humiliated
and the first petitioner drove the car to the parental house of PW-1 and stopped
the car in front of the house of PW-1 and came back. Furthermore, the charges
against the petitioners are that PW-1 and the first petitioner lived as husband and
wife and on 19.09.2005 at about 8.30.am the first petitioner/A1 forcibly
administered 20 volume tablets to PW-1 on the instigation of the petitioners 2 to
4 by saying that if you are alive, there would be a problem and if you die, all the
properties will come to us. Therefore, the first petitioner forcibly holding her and
also put 20 volume sleeping tablets in her mouth and poured the water and made
her to swallow the same. Therefore, the first petitioner has committed the
offence under Section 307 of IPC and the petitioners 2 to 4 have abetted to kill
9/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
PW-1 and fortunately, PW-1 recovered after the treatment. The trial Court
convicted the first petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A r/w 34 307 of SectionIPC and also convicted the
petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and Section 498-A r/w 34 of SectionIPC. Therefore, the accused preferred an appeal
in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
The Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed
the appeal on 30.04.2012 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, which
warrants no interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and also
perused the materials available on record.
6. On reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to prove
the charges levelled against the revision petitioners, the defacto
complainant/victim was examined as PW-1, she has clearly narrated the events
from the date of engagement to till the date of filing the complaint. Though the
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are material
contradictions between the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C
and the evidence given before the Court, there are improvements in both the
complaint and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On reading of
10/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
the entire evidence of PW-1, it is seen that both the Courts have rightly
appreciated the evidence and there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW-1.
The evidence of PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1/victim. Though at the
time of giving complaint, recording the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and
investigation, the father of PW-1 was alive, unfortunately, he died before
commencement of Trial. Therefore, he could not have been examined before the
Court to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 to some extent. The cases like this,
the evidence of PW-1/victim alone is sufficient unless there is a specific reason to
discard the evidence of the victim and the defence was able to establish the
reason for disbelieving the evidence of PW-1. Normally, Court would accept the
evidence of PW-1/victim. In this case, there is no compelled circumstances have
been established by the defence that the evidence of PW-1/victim is not
trustworthiness. Further PW-2/Mother of the victim has clearly spoken about the
subsequent events and also the demand of dowry some extent. Even though
most of the incidents had taken place in the four walls of the matrimonial home,
one cannot expect the independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of the
victim. Both the Courts below have pointed out the oral evidence and also the
documentary evidence to corroborate the events. At the instance of dashing
PW-1’s head against the wall by demanding money and also the jewels, she
immediately went to the hospital for treatment and she has not revealed the said
fact before the Doctor and it does not mean that the evidence of PW-1/victim is
false. Unfortunately, in this country, the girls till taking the decision not to live
11/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
with the husband, whatever happens in the matrimonial home through the in-
laws, they won’t reveal the same to anyone. If the incident goes beyond their
control and extended the extreme stage, they would reveal with the parents or
closely related person or friends. Therefore, the Court cannot expect the
corroboration or the documentary proof for each and every events, the Court has
to see whether the evidence of PW-1 is trustworthy or not and find out the
reason to believe or not to believe. On reading of the entire materials, it is seen
that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 4, 7 9, 11
and 12 and found that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable
doubts. From the evidence of PWs-1, 9 and 12, offence under Section 307
against the first petitioner/A1 is clearly established. Considering the serious nature
of the offence and also the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not
compoundable, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is
not applicable to the present case on hand. This Court, while exercising the
revisional jurisdiction, cannot exercise the power of the Appellate Court and it
cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence and cannot interfere with the judgement,
unless this Court finds any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. This Court
finds no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. There is no merit in the
present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. While considering the compromise, this Court has to see the key issue
that whether offence in question is more in the nature of a crime against society,
12/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
or more a personal wrong. Seriousness of crime and its social impact should be a
key consideration. In this case, offence under Section 307 IPC fall in category of
heinous and serious offence and therefore, it has to be treated as crime against
society and not against individual. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that parties are ready to
compound the offences since the first petitioner has already filed petition for
divorce.
8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The judgment
dated 30.04.2012 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Namakkal is hereby confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the
petitioners to undergo remaining period of sentence forthwith.
19.08.2019
(1/2)
Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order
KMI
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal.
2. The Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Namakkal.
3. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai-104.
13/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.571 of 2012
P.VELMURUGAN, J
KMI
Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2012
19.08.2019
(1/2)
14/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
