Nagaraj vs State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 25090 Mad

                                                                         Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 21.12.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                             Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

                     Nagaraj                                               ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs

                     1.State represented by
                     Inspector of Police,
                     AWPS (West) B-2 R.S.Puram PS,
                     Coimbatore.
                     (Crime No.30 of 2011)

                     2.State Represented by Public Prosecutor,
                     Coimbatore                                            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

                     401 of Cr.P.C., against order of the learned III Additional District and

                     Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 16.11.2016 made in Crl.A.No.180 of

                     2015 by confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate

                     (Additional Mahila Court), Coimbatore dated 03.08.2015 in C.C.No.78 of

                     2013.


                     1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016




                                         For Petitioner     :   Mr.J.Franklin

                                         For Respondents    :   Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the

petitioner/accused challenging the judgment of the the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 16.11.2016 made

in Crl.A.No.180 of 2015, confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial

Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Coimbatore dated 03.08.2015 in

C.C.No.78 of 2013, in which, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as

below:-

Sl.No. Offence under Section Punishment Imposed on the accused To undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and 1 498-A to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The marriage between the de-facto complainant and the

petitioner/accused took place on 18.02.2008 as per Hindu Rites. After

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

marriage, they have been living together as husband and wife in the house

of the accused. They also got a child out of their marital life. The allegation

of the de-facto complainant is that the accused used to beat PW1(wife), by

demanding gold jewels and used to scold her and finally, sent her away

from the matrimonial home.

3. It is further alleged that, when PW1 was at her parents' house, she

heard that the accused got married with some other woman. On the

complaint given by PW1 on 06.11.2011, PW10 Ms.Yogambal, Sub-

Inspector of Police, has registered the FIR in Cr.No.30 of 2011 under

Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. After PW10 took up the case for investigation,

she examined the witnesses and thereafter, she arrested the accused and sent

him to remand. She examined further witnesses and after completing her

investigation, she filed the charge sheet under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC.

4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the

materials available on record, charges have been framed against the accused

under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC and the accused was questioned under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

Section 313 Cr.P.C., The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be

tried.

5. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as

PW1 to PW11 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the

side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were

marked.

6. After considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on

the side of the prosecution, the learned Trail Judge found the accused guilty

for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted and sentenced

him to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of

Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment.

However, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 494 IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused had preferred an appeal before

the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in

Crl.A.No.180 of 2015 and the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by that, the accused has preferred

this Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

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

Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondents and perused the

materials available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that PW1

(wife) and the accused (husband) got separated in the year 2009 itself and

the complaint has been given in the year 2011 with false allegations. The

Courts below, without properly appreciating the evidence, convicted the

accused and it is not maintainable.

10. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondents submitted that the evidence of PW1 would show that she was

subjected to harassment and cruelty by the accused and her evidence has

been corroborated by PW2 to PW6, who are the parents and family

members of PW1 and hence, there is no merit in the present revision case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

11. Point for consideration:

Whether the confirmation of the conviction and sentence of the

accused for the offence under Sections 498(A) IPC by the learned Sessions

Judge is fair and proper?

12. The marriage between the de-facto complainant and the accused

was not denied. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife at

the house of the accused. According to the evidence of PW1, who is the de-

facto complainant, they lived together only for nine months and thereafter,

there was misunderstanding between themselves and the accused started to

harass her by beating and demanding dowry. Her evidence reveals that in

view of the problems between the couple, she was sent out of the

matrimonial home. While she was living with her parents' house, she got a

notice for divorce. Subsequently the accused himself came again and took

her back with a promise that they would live together happily. However, on

13.04.2009, problem arose between the couple and she was beaten up and

abused badly by the accused. Thereafter, she was not allowed to live with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

the accused and she got separated from him. At the time when the complaint

was filed, PW1 was living in her parents' house. PW1 had stated in her

evidence that on 06.11.2011, she heard through her brother that the accused

got married to some one else. Only on hearing the information that the

accused got married once again, PW1 got visibly disturbed and lodged a

complaint. There was nearly 1 ½ years gap from the date of the complaint.

13. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that there was delay in

making the complaint. However, he proceeded to convict the accused on the

ground that there is no other reason for PW1 to get separated from her

husband and she lived in her parents' house. But, in order to prove the guilt

of the accused under Section 498-A IPC, it has to be proved that PW1 was

subjected to cruelty. The cruelty should be of such a nature that the wife

might be driven to commit suicide or to cause serious injury on her for the

purpose of getting dowry like property or valuable security. It is relevant to

extract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC.

''498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to

cruelty.

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.]''

14. In the case in hand, the evidence of PW1 does not show what

exactly was the demand of the accused. She has stated that the accused

demanded dowry and she was beaten and scolded by him. The couple were

happy for about 9 months from the date of their marriage. At the time when

the notice for divorce was sent by the accused, PW1 was at her parents'

house. Once again they re-united and started to live together. They got

separated once again from 13.04.2009.

15. Had PW1 given a complaint immediately after she was sent out

of her matrimonial house, it is understandable that she was forced to be at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

her parents' house only because of the harassment meted out to her. She

lived at her parents house for nearly for 1 ½ years. Only on the date when

she heard about the re-marriage of the petitioner/accused, she got prompted

to give a complaint. Until then, she neither opted to take steps for restitution

of conjugal rights, nor gave any complaint for cruelty. The allegation that

the accused got married once again is not proved and the accused got

acquitted from the charge under Section 494 IPC. The main grievance of

the de-facto complainant as it appears from her complaint is that the accused

should not have married anyone else. So the complaint is nothing but an

emotional reaction given by PW1 in hearing the news that the accused got

married to some one else.

16. In the said circumstances and from the materials on record, I do

not find anything that would prove the guilt of the accused in respect of the

offence under Section 498-A IPC., The learned Trial Judge had convicted

the accused on the presumption that there cannot be any other reason for

PW1 to live in her parents' house, except harassment or marital cruelty.

Since the learned Trial Judge and the learned First Appellate Judge did not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

understand the import of Section 498-A IPC in the above given

circumstances of the case and proceeded to find the accused guilty for the

offence under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, the judgments of the Courts

below is liable to be set aside and the point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the

judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Coimbatore, dated 16.11.2016 made in Crl.A.No.180 of 2015 is set aside.

The petitioner/accused is on bail, pending this Criminal Revision Case.

Since now, this Court has acquitted him of the charge under Section 498-A

IPC, the bail bond, if any executed by him, shall stand cancelled. The fine

amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him.

21.12.2021 Index:yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

To

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Coimbatore.

3. The Inspector of Police, AWPS (West) B-2 R.S.Puram PS, Coimbatore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

ssn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

Crl.R.C.No.1696 of 2016

21.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis