Ravichandran vs Dhanalakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 17404 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 25.08.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                         Criminal Revision Case No.1364 of 2019
                                                           and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.18143 of 2019


                    Ravichandran                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                          Versus

                    Dhanalakshmi                                                 ... Respondent

                           Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Criminal
                    Procedure Code, to set aside the sentence passed by the learned III Additional
                    District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam in Crl.A.No.76 of 2018
                    dated 01.10.2019 under Section 494 IPC for 3 years R.I and imposed fine of
                    Rs.2,000/- and confirmed the order dated 02.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.202 of
                    2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam.

                                   For Petitioner     :      Mr.K.Natarajan

                                   For Respondent     :      Mr.R.Sethuvarayar

                                                    ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against order dated

1.10.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.76 of 2018 by the learned III Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam.

2.The respondent/complainant herein filed a private complaint before the

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam against the petitioner herein

and others. The learned Magistrate taken the cognizance of the complaint in

C.C.No.202 of 2000. After trial, the petitioner found guilty for the offence

under Section 494 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The learned Sessions

Judge taken the appeal on file in C.A.No.76 of 2018 and made over to the

learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore @

Virudhachalam. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side and

considering materials available on record, the learned III Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore @ Virudhachalam dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the said judgment,

the petitioner is before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage

between the petitioner/A1 herein and Accused No.2 viz., Selvakumari was not

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

performed as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and it is not a valid one.

Though P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated about the marriage performed

between the petitioner and Accused No.2, but, in his cross examination, he has

disowned his own evidence and there is no materials to show that during the

subsistence of first marriage, the petitioner married another woman viz.,

Selvakumari. Therefore, the trial Court failed to appreciate the entire evidence

and only based on presumption and sympathy convicted and sentenced the

petitioner. The appellate Court as a fact finding Court has also failed to re-

appreciate the entire evidence and simply dismissed the appeal and confirmed

the order of the trial Court, which warrants interference of this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that during the

subsistence of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein, the

petitioner married another woman viz., Selva Kumari and they have begotten

three children and also obtained Ration Card, which clearly shows that the

petitioner married Selva Kumari. Hence, both the Courts below are rightly

appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner and

there is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6.Admittedly, the respondent filed the private complaint against the

petitioner in C.C.No.202 of 2000 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Virudhachalam. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 3

witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked one document as

Ex.P1. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and

one document was marked as Ex.D1 and also examined two Court witnesses

as C.W.1 and C.W.2 and marked five documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On

completion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the

offence under Section 494 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, he preferred the

appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court on 01.10.2019.

7. On a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.2, who attended the

marriage of the petitioner and Accused No.2 has clearly shows that on

10.09.2000, the petitioner solemnized marriage with one SelvaKumari/A2 at

Pillaiyar Koil, Kattukarai and P.W.2 witnessed the same. At that time, the

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

parents and relatives of bride and bridegroom are present and the petitioner and

A2 exchanged garlands and the petitioner tied thali. Further, the evidence of

P.W.1 clearly shows that the marriage between the petitioner and Accused No.2

was solemnised on 10.09.2000 at Pillaiyar Koil as per Hindu Rites and

Customs by tying Thali in the presence of parents and relatives of the petitioner

and A2. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly deposed

that there was first marriage performed between the petitioner and the

respondent and during the subsistence of the first marriage, the petitioner

married Selvakumari/A2.

8.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that P.W.2 during cross examination has disowned his evidence in chief. On a

careful reading of evidence of P.W.2, it reveals that chief examination was

conducted on 23.05.2016, but, on the same day, he was not cross examined by

the defence counsel. Subsequently, after two years, P.W.2 was cross examined,

the reasons best known to them. Therefore this Court is not inclined to take the

evidence of cross examination of P.W.2.

9. On a combined reading of evidence of P.W.2 and Family Card of the

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

petitioner/A1 and A2, which was marked as Ex.P1, this Court finds that during

the subsistence of the first marriage between the petitioner and the respondent,

the petitioner married A2 and hence, the petitioner has committed the offence

under Section 494 IPC. Therefore, both the Courts below are rightly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted and sentenced

the petitioner.

10. It is a settled proposition of law that when the Trial Court and the

Appellate Court had already appreciated the entire evidence and also given a

concurrent findings, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court

cannot re appreciate the evidence and take another view. Therefore, this Court

has to see whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the order of the Courts

below. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the order

of the Courts below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, during the

subsistence of first marriage, the petitioner married A2 and it has spoiled the

life of the respondent, this Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to

reduce the sentence of the petitioner.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

25.08.2021 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ms

To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

Crl.R.C.No.1364 of 2019

25.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in