Madras High Court
Senthilkumar @ Kumarasami vs State on 8 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
1.Senthilkumar @ Kumarasami
2.Kumarathal .. Petitioners
Vs.
State, through
Sub-Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.6 of 2006) .. Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w.
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated
19.07.2017, passed in C.A.No.35 of 2015, by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Palani, who partly allowed the appeal and set aside the
conviction and sentence of each six months R.I., Rs.100/- fine, in default, 1
month S.I. for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and
confirmed the conviction and sentence of each 3 months R.I., Rs.100/- fine,
in default, 1 month S.I. for an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., imposed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, in C.C.No.277 of 2006, dated
13.08.2015.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision has been filed to check the correctness
of the conviction and sentence, dated 19.07.2015, passed in Crl.A.No.35 of
2015, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Palani, wherein, she modified the findings arrived at by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Palani, dated 13.08.2015, passed in C.C.No.277 of 2006.
2.The revision petitioners 1 and 2 are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2
in C.C.No.277 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani. They
stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After full-fledged trial, the
learned Judicial Magistrate, by judgment dated 13.08.2015, found the
revision petitioners/accused guilty of the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In view of the
above, both the accused are convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Similarly, they were convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
3.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused
preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.35 of 2015, on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Palani. The learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Palani, vide judgment dated 19.07.2017, came to the
conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. alone and confirmed the sentence awarded by the trial Court. In
otherwise, in respect of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court
for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, she
allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. In order to check the
correctness of those judgments, both the accused are before this Court with
this Criminal Revision Petition.
4.The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
(i) P.W.1 – Udayamalar is the wife of the first accused. Their
marriage was solemnized on 11.11.2002 in Tiru Avinankudi, Palani.
During the time of marriage, 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.50,000/-
were given by the parents of P.W.1 to the first accused as Stridhana
property. After sometime, from the date of marriage, in order to confirm the
job of the first accused, both the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring
Rs.50,000/- from her parents house. Further, after made such demand, they
had driven away P.W.1 from the matrimonial house. After four months
from the said occurrence, the elders of both the family settled the issue and
in turn, P.W.1 returned to her matrimonial house. However, after sometime,
from the date on which P.W.1 returned to A1's house, again, both the
accused insulted P.W.1 and made demand to bring Rs.50,000/-. Ultimately,
P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Palani,
under Ex.P.1. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.9 – Poongothai, the
then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani, on 03.05.2006
registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2006 for the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The printed F.I.R. is
marked as Ex.P.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
(ii) After registration of the case, P.W.9 visited the scene of
occurrence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He
arrested the first accused and produced him before the learned Judicial
Magistrate for sending him to judicial custody. Thereafter, she handed over
the case records to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, for further
investigation. On receipt of the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palani, concluded the investigation and filed final report as both the accused
are liable to be convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. He filed a final report accordingly.
5.From the above materials, the learned trial Judge framed charges
against the accused under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Both the accused denied same and opted for trial.
Hence, both of them were put on trial. In the course of trial proceedings, in
order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and two documents were exhibited as Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2.
(i) Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 – Udayamalar, who is the wife of
the first accused, being the victim, speaks about the occurrence as after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
marriage, both the accused made demand to bring Rs.50,000/- for the
purpose of confirming the job, which already had by the first accused
temporarily.
(ii) P.W.2 – Subramani, who is the father of P.W.1, gave evidence as
during the relevant point of time, due to the demand of dowry made by the
accused, her daughter returned to the house.
(iii) P.W.3 – Ramaathal, who is the wife of P.W.2, also gave evidence
in support of the evidence given by P.W.2 as during the relevant point of
time, the accused made dowry demand.
(iv) P.W.4 – Thirumalaisamy, P.W.5 - Appukutty @ Thangamuthu,
P.W.6 - Chinnathambi, P.W.7 - Mukudeeswaran and P.W.8 - Dhandapani
are the witnesses residing in the same locality, wherein the first accused was
residing. They spoke about the occurrence as during the relevant point of
time, they conducted Panchayat in respect of the dispute having by P.W.1
and the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
(v) P.W.9 – Poongothai, the then Inspector of Police, speaks about the
registration and investigation of the case and about the filing of final report.
6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the same as false.
However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any
documents on their side.
7.Having considered the materials placed before him and upon
hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either
side, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, came to the conclusion that
both the accused found guilty of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced them as
stated in Paragraph 2 of this order.
8.Aggrieved over the same, the accused preferred an appeal in
Crl.A.No.35 of 2015 before the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Palani. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani,
had partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
respect of Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquitted the accused for the offence
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners/Accused are before this
Court by way of filing the present Criminal Revision Petition, to check the
correctness of those judgments rendered by the Courts below.
10.I have heard Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police.
11.It is the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the demand made by the first accused not comes under the
purview of cruelty and therefore, the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.
cannot be attracted against both the accused.
12.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)
appearing for the respondent Police contended that the reasoned judgment
rendered by the Courts below are found correct and it cannot be said that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
judgments rendered by the Courts below are perverse and prayed for
dismissal of this Criminal Revision.
13.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record carefully.
14.Now, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners with the relevant records to resolve the issue
raised in this revision, it would be necessary to see whether the allegation
levelled against the accused comes under the purview of Section 498-A
I.P.C. In this regard, it is necessary to extract Section 498-A I.P.C., which
reads as follows:-
''498-A. 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,
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
''cruelty'' means—
(a) any wilful 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 to meet such
demand.''
Therefore, in view of the said Section, it is for the prosecution to prove that
while at the time of occurrence, the accused herein had committed cruelty
on P.W.1.
15.In this connection, on going through the evidence given by P.W.1
to P.W.3, who are the sufferers, it seems that during the relevant point of
time, the first accused herein with a view to get confirmation of his job, had
demanded P.W.1 to bring Rs.50,000/-. As already observed, in view of
Section 498-A I.P.C., the term ''cruelty'' consists of two clauses. To attract
Section 498-A I.P.C., it must be established that the cruelty or harassment to
wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit
suicide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
16.Here, it is the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that at no stretch of imagination, P.W.1 to
P.W.3 have not stated as during the time of occurrence, the accused herein
made harassment to P.W.1 by means of using force to cause grave bodily
injury to her or to commit suicide. Therefore, in view of the explanation
given in Clause 'a', the act committed by the accused is not coming under
the purview of Section 498-A I.P.C. In respect of Clause 'b' of the said
definition, it is for the prosecution to prove that during the time of
occurrence, both the accused made harassment by way of compelling P.W.1
to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry.
17.In this occasion, to see whether the demand made by the accused
is within the meaning of demand of dowry. In general, in respect of dowry,
it was defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 that, ''dowry'' means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly – (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;
or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any other person. Therefore, to attract the
word ''dowry'', it should be necessary that the demand should be connection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
with the marriage. In otherwise, here it is the case, the accused made
demand to bring Rs.50,000/- only with a view to get confirmation of his job.
Further, on going through the evidence given by P.W.1, it does not appear
that P.W.1 has conclusively established that the beating and harassment
were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal
demands. Therefore, the said act committed by the accused is also not
coming within the ambit of Section 498-A I.P.C. The Courts below without
understanding the meaning of dowry, convicted the accused, which is
erroneous in law and therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the
Courts below are liable to be set aside.
18.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction
and sentence dated 13.08.2015, passed in C.C.No.277 of 2006, by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, which was modified by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani, in Crl.A.No.35 of 2015,
dated 19.07.2017, is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the
charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
Speaking/Non-speaking order 08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Palani.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Palani.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
smn2
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.711 of 2017
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
