Madras High Court
Narendrababu Dronavalli vs State Rep By on 8 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
Narendrababu Dronavalli ...Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of police,
W– 27, All Women Police Station,
Vadapalani, Chennai. ...Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the judgment and sentence
dated 22.07.2016 passed in C.C.No.8175 of 2010 by the learned IV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, as confirmed by the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.216 of
2016, dated 17.06.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan
Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
*******
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2016 passed in C.C.No.8175 of 2010 by
the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, as confirmed by
the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in
Crl.A.No.216 of 2016, dated 17.06.2019. Originally the case was registered
against six accused and the petitioner is A1. The accused 2 to 6 were tried
separately and after trial they were acquitted. The petitioner/A1 was arrested
on execution of warrant and tried in this calender case.
2 The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for
the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC and Section of 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act. After investigation, laid charge sheet before the learned IV Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and the learned Magistrate taken a case on file
in C.C.No. 8175 of 2010.
3 In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as as many as 6
witness were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 6 documents were marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
Ex.P1 to P6 and no material object was produced. After trial, the learned
Magistrate, by judgment dated 22.07.2016 convicted the petitioner and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of two months for the offence under section 498 (A) of IPC,
and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of
Rs.2000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
one month for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal in C.A.No.216 of
2016. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
after hearing both the parties by Judgement dated 17.06.2019 dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.
Assailing the concurrent judgment of conviction, the petitioner is now before
this Court with the present criminal revision.
4 Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no
demand of dowry and cruelty as projected by the prosecution. No witnesses
have spoken about the demand of dowry by the petitioner even at the time of
marriage or after the marriage. In fact after the marriage the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
his wife the victim went to USA lived for eight months. After sometime the
wife filed a petition seeking divorce and the same was granted and she got re-
married with another person. After the lapse of 2 years the present complaint
was preferred against the petitioner and the delay has not been properly
explained. Even though the trial court acquitted the other accused, on the
basis of very same material wrongly convicted the petitioner. The I Additional
Sessions Judge, without appreciating evidence of the prosecution witnesses
properly confirmed the conviction passed by the trial court which warrants
interference.
5 Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
P.W.1 to P.W.5 categorically stated that at the time of the marriage they
provided 80 soverigns of Gold jewels and 12 sovereigns of chain and
bracelet, diamond ring, etc. After marriage both of them went to USA and
after six months returned to India and the petitioner left his wife in India
itself and went to USA. The family members tried to compromise the issue
and since the wife could not solve the problem, as no other option, had filed
the complaint. Hence the delay has occurred and the same will not a ground
to acquit the accused. Further, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
has proved the demand of dowry and the cruelty caused by the petitioner.
Since the other accused have not lived with the defacto complainant, the trial
Court acquitted the other accused. But, prosecution has clearly proved the
demand of dowry and the cruelty caused by the petitioner and hence
convicted him. The learned Sessions Judge has also confirmed the conviction
passed by the trial Court, which does not call for any interference of this
Court.
6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
7 This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot
exercise power of the Appellate Court and this Court, being a revisional
Court, cannot sit in the arm chair of appellate Court and it has no power to re-
assess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The revisional
Court can only see whether there is any perversity in appreciation of evidence
by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
8 P.W.1 is the grandfather P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is father
of the victim and they have categorically stated that even at the time of the
marriage they provided sufficient gold jewels and other ornaments and since
petitioner was not satisfied with that, demanded further dowry. P.W.1,
deposed that after marriage they went to USA and stayed there for nearly
seven months and during that stay, there was no consummation of marriage
and the victim was not allowed to speak anyone and they came back to India.
Since there was a quarrel, the petitioner left his wife in India and went to
USA. From the evidence P.W.2, it is clear that the petitioner demanded
money and also caused cruelty and it is seen that during the trial victim
was died. In the absence of the victim who is the wife, the best persons,
who can speak about the cruelty caused by the husband is the family
members of the victim. In this case, prosecution has examined family
members of the victim as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and from their evidence
prosecution has clearly proved the demand of dowry and the cruelty caused
by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has also appreciated the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has
committed offence under Sections 498 (A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge has also re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
This Court does not find any perversity in appreciating the evidence by both
the Courts below and there is no merit in the revision.
9 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of
merit and substance. Trial Court is directed to secure the petitioner to undergo
remaining period of imprisonment, if any.
08.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
pbl/cgi
To
1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, W– 27, All Women Police Station,
Vadapalani, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.1007 of 2019
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
