Madras High Court
Manikandan vs The State Rep.By on 8 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
Manikandan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Chidambaram,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.15 of 2013) .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set
aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.09 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015 passed by
the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram,
confirming the conviction judgment made in C.C.No.03 of 2014 dated
12.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram
and set the petitioner at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the
judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram,
dated 17.12.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.09 of 2015, confirming the judgment
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram, dated 12.02.2015
passed in C.C.No.03 of 2014.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused married
the defacto complainant (PW.1) and they were living as husband and wife
along with parents. The 1st accused has developed an illicit intimacy of
another woman and started to harass the defacto complainant/PW.1 by
bringing that lady to home; he ill treated PW.1 by beating her often; on
09.08.2013, he quarreled with PW.1 by abusing her with filthy language
and drove her out from the matrimonial home. On the complaint given by
PW.1 on 21.08.2013, a case was registered in Crime No.15 of 2013 of
Chidambaram All Women Police station for offence under Sections 354,
498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. First Information Report was prepared by
PW.9-Thripura Sundari/Sub Inspector of Police. PW.10- Meena/Inspector
of Police took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence,
prepared a rough sketch and the observation mahazar. She enquired the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
witnesses and recorded the statement on 21.08.2013 and arrested the 1st
accused. Later she arrested the rest of the accused also. After completing
the investigation, she filed a charge sheet against the accused under
Section 354, 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. She also sent an alteration
report (Ex.P.7). After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with
the materials produced before the Court, the learned trial Judge framed
charges against the accused under Section 354, 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i)
IPC. The accused have been questioned. Since the accused denied the
charges, trial began.
3. During the course of the trial, on the side of the
prosecution, ten (10) witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and seven
(7) documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 7. On the side of the
petitioner/accused, no witness was examined and no document was
marked.
4. After the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the
materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the 1st accused
guilty and convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
12.02.2015, made in C.C.No.03 of 2014, as follows:-
Rank of the Charges Findings of Punishment
accused the trial
Court
1st accused U/s.294(b) Found guilty Convicted and imposed
IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo 2 weeks
Simple Imprisonment.
U/s.498(A) Found guilty Convicted and sentenced to
IPC undergo 2 years Simple
Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default
to undergo for further
period of 3 weeks Simple
Imprisonment.
The 2nd accused is the mother, 3rd accused is the father and 4th accused is
the brother of the 1st accused. The learned trial Judge has found the
accused 2 to 4 not guilty and acquitted them.
5. Against the said conviction, the petitioner/accused has filed
an appeal in C.A.No.09 of 2015, before the learned II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and that was dismissed by confirming
the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, this Criminal Revision
Case has been filed by the petitioner/1st accused.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st accused and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective
by giving due significance to the contradiction in the evidence of
witnesses; the evidence of PW.1 (defacto complainant) was not
corroborated with any other evidence; the prosecution has not proved the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; it is wrong on the part of the
learned Sessions Court to convict the accused.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State
has submitted that the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW.1,
has clearly stated about the event that had occurred in her life during her
marital life with the 1st accused and the manner in which she was ill treated
by the 1st accused and his family members; the learned trial Judge has
correctly taken note of the reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and found the 1st accused guilty and hence the judgment of the Session
Court does not require any interference.
9. Points for consideration:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
Whether the sentence and judgement of the trial court suffer
from any factual or legal infirmity so as to warrant my interference?
10. The relationship between the defacto complainant and the
1st accused is not in dispute. After the marriage between the 1st accused
and the defacto complainant, they started their matrimonial life in the
house of the 1st accused along with his parents. The defacto complainant
was also blessed with two children out of her wedlock with the 1st
accused. Misunderstanding started to arise between the couples, when the
1st accused had developed illegal intimacy with an another woman. At
some point of time, the 1st accused brought the other woman to the house
of PW.1 and that had escalated the tension. When PW.1 objected the
relationship of the 1st accused with the other woman, the 1st accused got
infuriated, abused, harassed and ill treated PW.1. At last the 1st accused
had driven away PW.1 and sent her out of the matrimonial house.
Thereafter, also the 1st accused did not realize his mistake and change his
attitude. Having frustrated with the attitude of the 1st accused and unable to
withstand his ill treatment, PW.1 had given a notice complaint on
21.08.2013. In the complaint (Ex.P1) itself, PW.1 has narrated about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
incident that had drifted away the relationship between herself and the 1st
accused. Her grievance is that the unjustified attitude of the 1st accused
was not condemned by his parents and his brother. She narrated the
incident in the same manner as how she had narrated in the complaint.
Despite there was some allegations of dowry demand and other, the
problems between the couples went intense only because the illegal
intimacy developed by the 1st accused with some other woman.
11. The learned counsel for petitioner/1st accused submitted
that except the evidence of PW.1, no other supporting/corroborated
evidence are available and that would weaken the case of the prosecution.
Since the matrimonial offences having happened inside the four walls of
the house, very rarely it would come to the knowledge of a third person.
Even if the incident are known to other people, they would mostly be
relatives of either the defacto complainant or her husband. Persons who
are in a close relationship with the 1st accused like his relatives will not
come forward to depose evidence against him. So inevitably the parents of
the victim alone can come to narrate about the harassment and ill treatment
meted out to their daughter by her husband and in-laws. PW.2 is the father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
of PW.1, PW.3 is the maternal uncle of PW.1. Apart from PW.2 and PW.3,
PW.4 relatives of PW.1, also deposed evidence in support of the case of
the prosecution.
12. PW.2 and PW.4 have stated that they had the knowledge
about the misunderstanding and ill treatment suffered by PW.1 at the hands
of the 1st accused. They have stated that PW.1 was driven away from the
matrimonial house by the 1st accused. All these events would only show
that the 1st accused did not live a peaceful life with the defacto
complainant/PW.1 and he was continuously ill treating her. However, it is
brought to the knowledge of this Court that during the pendency of the
case, there was a settlement in connection with the maintenance case
already filed by the defacto complainant in the jurisdictional Court. But on
perusal of compromise memo entered into between the parties, there is no
mention about this case. That would show that the defacto complainant did
not want to leave the accused scot-free. The evidence on record would
also show that the 1st accused had developed a kind of illegal intimacy
with some other woman and ill treated PW.1. The 1st accused and PW.1
have got two children. It is seen that he has an another child through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
another woman also. These kind of attitude of the 1st accused cannot be
easily condoned by a wife like PW.1. So the evidence available on record
is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 294(b) and
498(A) IPC. The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence
and convicted the 1st accused.
13. However, the post case development would show that the
mother of the 1st accused had settled some property in favour of PW.1
while compromising the maintenance case. The learned counsel for the
petitioner/1st accused also submitted that given the nature of the present
circumstances, some indulgence should be shown in the matter of
punishment. Taking into consideration all these facts and attendant
circumstances, I feel that a little consideration should be shown in the
quantum of sentence alone.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed. The judgment of the first appellate Court is modified to the extent
that the 1st accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 498(A)
and 294(b) IPC and he stands convicted and sentenced to undergo 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
months S.I along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 week
Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC; and he is
imposed with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 2 weeks Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section Section 294(b) IPC. If the fine
amount has already been paid by the accused, he need not pay it once
again. The period of incarceration undergone by the accused can be set off
under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
15. The learned trial Judge is directed to issue Non-Bailable
Warrant for securing the accused and send him to prison to undergo the
remaining period of sentence.
08.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
R.N. MANJULA, J.
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2016
08.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
