Murthy vs State Rep By
2021 Latest Caselaw 25227 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 22.12.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                    Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

                  Murthy
                  S/o.Kasi
                                                                                           ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.
                  State rep by
                  Inspector of Police,
                  All Women Police Station,
                  Gummidipoondi.
                  Thiruvallur District.
                  (Crime No.2/2012)
                                                                                     ... Respondent

                         Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
                  aside the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions
                  Judge, Thiruvallur in C.A.No.104 of 2014 dated 23.08.2016 confirming the
                  judgement made by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri in C.C.No.84
                  of 2012 on 09.12.2014.

                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar

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



                 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017



                                                      ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment of

the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur dated

23.08.2016 made in C.A.No.104 of 2014 which modified (in respect of the

sentence alone, but confirming the findings with regard to the guilt of the

accused) the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri dated

09.12.2014 made in C.C.No.84 of 2012.

2. The de facto complainant is wife of the first accused. They married

on 19.04.2001 and they have been living together as husband and wife at the

house of the first accused. They also blessed with a girl child through their

wedlock. On 29.01.2012 at about 2.00 p.m, the first accused assaulted PW1

with iron box and injured her. The occurrence is said to have taken place

when PW1 questioned the first accused about his alleged illegal intimacy with

one woman. It is further alleged that the first accused had demanded jewels

and money from the de facto complainant.

3. On the complaint given by PW1, Ms.Devika/Sub Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station, Ponneri registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012

for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC read with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After

registering the case, she took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and

the Doctor, who treated PW1 and got wound certificate. After completing her

investigation, she filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence

under Sections 498(A), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil

Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After the case was taken on

file and on consideration of the materials available on record, the learned trial

Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offence under Sections

498(A), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and the accused was questioned.

Since the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, trial was

conducted.

4. During the course of the trial, on the side of the complainant, 7

witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW7 and 3 documents were marked

as Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no

document was marked.

5. At the conclusion of trial and considering the materials available on

record, the learned trial Judge found the first accused guilty for the offence

under Sections 498(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default

Simple Imprisonment of One Month. The first accused was acquitted from

rest of the charges and the other accused were acquitted from the case. The

appeal preferred by the first accused in C.A.No.104 of 2014 was partly

allowed by modifying the sentence alone by ordering the accused to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment of Six months. However, the finding as to the guilt of

the accused was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved over that, the

first accused has preferred the present revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the

entire materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first accused

submitted that despite the de facto complainant has alleged that she was

assaulted by the first accused and got injured, no medical proof is produced to

substantiate the said allegation; PWs4 to 7 turned hostile and they did not

support the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PWs1 to 3 also did not

support the case of the prosecution; the Investigation Officer was not

examined; the learned trial Judge had omitted to give benefit of doubt to the

accused by appreciating the evidence in proper perspective.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

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

respondent submitted that in the offences of this nature, the evidence of the

victim (PW1) alone is sufficient to convict the accused, if the evidence is

found to be reliable. Since the Court below found the evidence of victim is

reliable, the first accused was found guilty and convicted.

9. Point for consideration:-

Whether the punishment of the accused for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC by the learned Sessions Judge based on the materials available on record is fair and proper?

10. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the marriage between the

first accused and the de facto complainant was not denied. They had a female

child born out of their marriage was also not denied. PW1 is differently-abled

woman and it is alleged that from the date of marriage, she had put to several

harassment by the first accused and his relatives. But, however in her

evidence, she has not stated anything against the first accused with regard to

the demand of the dowry. She has alleged that the first accused was in illegal

intimacy with another woman and married some other woman when his

marriage with PW1 was subsisting. When she questioned this, the first

accused got wild and attacked her with iron box. A specific event which had

taken place on 29.01.2012 has triggered PW1 to give this complaint. Despite

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

the marriage had taken place on 18.03.2002, no complaint for harassment or

demand for dowry was made until 29.01.2012. PW1 had stated in her evidence

that subsequent to the complaint, there was some negotiations held between

PW1 and the elder members of the family of the first accused. Believing the

assurance given by the elders, PW1 went back to the house of the first

accused. She has further stated that even thereafter she was ill-treated by the

first accused.

11. So far as the cause of action for this case is concerned, it relates

back to the event that had occurred on 29.01.2012. After the case was

registered, PW1 had condoned his acts and went to his house and lived with

him for some time. If PW1 was affected thereafter, she ought to have filed

another complaint only. The Doctor, who had treated PW1 and the

Investigation Officer were not examined in this case as witnesses. Hence, the

prosecution had failed to prove the alleged occurrence and the injuries

sustained by PW1 and her treatment as an inpatient in the hospital. The

learned Trial Judge had overlooked the above material aspects and proceeded

to convict the accused. The learned First Appellate Judge also did not

appreciate the evidence on record and other attending circumstances in proper

perspective. Hence, it is liable to be reversed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

12. In this context, it is also relevant to mention that as per the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the de facto complainant

and the first accused had dissolved their marriage and now they are living

separately.

13. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment dated

23.08.2016 made in C.A.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur is hereby set aside.

22.12.2021 Index: Yes/No

Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmi To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gummidipoondi.

Thiruvallur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

R.N.MANJULA, J

kmi

Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2017

22.12.2021

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