Madras High Court
Maharajan vs The State Rep. By on 21 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 22 of 2017
Maharajan : Petitioner / 1st Appellant/
Accused No.1
Vs.
The State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural.
(Crime No.21 of 2012). : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the judgment passed by the Additional Mahila Court,
Tirunelveli in C.C.No.543 of 2013, dated 08.10.2015, which has been
confirmed by the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli in C.A.No.115 of 2015, dated 25.11.2016 and set aside the same
and consequently acquit the petitioner from all the charges.
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
JUDGMENT
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to check the
correctness of the judgment, dated 25.11.2016, made in C.A.No.115 of 2015
on the file of the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,
wherein, the judgment rendered by the Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli
in C.C.No.543 of 2013, dated 08.10.2015 was modified.
2. Before the trial Court, the respondent police filed a charge
sheet against the revision petitioner and 5 other accused alleging that they
have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b),
506(i) and 406 of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court found the
revision petitioner and the other accused are guilty for the following
offences and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
Accused Section Sentence
A1, A2, A4 & 498(A) IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
A5 imprisonment for a period of three years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1
week simple imprisonment.
A1, A2, A4 & Section 4 of Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
A5 Dowry imprisonment for a period of two years and to
Prohibition pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1
Act week simple imprisonment.
A 3 & A6 498(A) Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 week.
A3 & A6 Section 4 of Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
Dowry imprisonment for a period of six months and to
Prohibition pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo
Act simple imprisonment for 1 week. (the sentences
are run concurrently)
and acquitted the accused from the other charges.
4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, all the accused
preferred an appeal in C.A.No.115 of 2015 before the III-Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, wherein, the judgment, dated 25.11.2016,
the learned Sessions Judge had partly allowed the appeal by confirming the
conviction and sentence awarded in favour of the revision petitioner/1st
accused under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. In respect to the other accused, the appeal prepared by them has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded in their favour are all set
aside. In the said circumstances, to check the correctness of the conviction
and sentence awarded, the first accused/revision petitioner is before this
Court with this Criminal Revision Case.
5. The relevant facts of the case, which gave rise to filing of this
appeal are necessary to be recapitulated for the disposal of this appeal:-
(i) The revision petitioner Maharajan is the husband of P.W.1-
Valli. The Accused Nos.2 and 3 (now acquitted) are her father-in-law and
mother-in-law respectively. The Accused Nos. 4 to 6 (now acquitted) are the
brothers of the revision petitioner. On 11.09.2011, the marriage between the
revision petitioner and P.W.1 was solemnised. During their marriage, the
parents of P.W.1 gave 25 Sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.25,000/- as a
Sridhana property to the revision petitioner. After the marriage, P.W.1 leads
a joint family along with all the accused. In the said occasion, the first
accused demanded the P.W.1 to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and one Bike as
additional dowry for the purpose of searching a house in Ernakulam,
wherein, he run a hotel business.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
(ii) Further, during such time, the first accused stated that
Sridhana properties given at the time of marriage was his personal property.
When the said occurrence had reported to the other accused, they were
abused the P.W.1 by saying that her father cheated them. Further, they were
made threatening that they proposed to perform second marriage to the
revision petitioner.
(iii) Even after celebrating the Deepavali, the revision petitioner
made the same demand and also due to the reason that the other accused
constantly abused P.W.1, she lodged a complaint before the police under
Ex.P.1.
(iv) In turn, on receipt of the said complaint, P.W.6-Tmt.Prema,
the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case against the revision
petitioner and 5 others in Crime No.21 of 2012 under Sections 498(A), 406,
294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The
printed FIR was marked as Ex.P.2. After registering the case, she has
forwarded the copy of the FIR to P.W.7 for investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
(v) P.W.7-Sonamuthu, the then Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu
Police Station, on receipt of the said FIR took the same for investigation. He
examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 19.09.2012
around 9.30 a.m., he arrested the second accused and produced before the
Judicial Magistrate No.3 for judicial custody. Since the other accused got
anticipatory bail, he concluded the investigation and filed a final report
against all the accused.
6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the
charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. All the accused denied the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, the
accused was put on trial.
7. During the course of trial proceedings, in order to prove their
case on the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
P.W.7 and 2 documents were exhibited as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2.
8. Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.1-Valli, who is the
defacto complainant, speaks about the occurrence as during the relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
point of time, after the marriage, the revision petitioner, who is her husband
demanded to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and one bike as additional dowry.
(I) P.W.2-Seeni, who is the father of P.W.1, and P.W.3-Ganesan,
who is the brother of P.W.1, have also deposed before the trial Court as
after the marriage, the revision petitioner herein demanded P.W.1 to bring
Rs.1,00,000/- and one bike as additional dowry.
(ii) P.W.4-Murugan and P.W.5-Vembu, who are also the relatives
of P.W.1, speaks about the occurrence as the revision petitioner demanded
P.W.1 to bring the additional dowry.
(iii) P.W.6-Prema and P.W.7-Sonamuthu are the police officers
speaks about the registration of the case, investigation and about the filing
of final report.
9. When the above incriminating materials were put to the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the same as
false. However, they did not chose to examine any witness or mark any
document on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
10. Having considered all the above materials, the learned
Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, came to the conclusion that all the
accused are found guilty under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced as stated above. In the
appeal, the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
had confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the revision
petitioner alone and acquitted the other accused from the respective
charges. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner is before this
Court to check the correctness of those judgments.
11. I have heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government
Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. I have also perused the records
carefully.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would contend that being the reason that the revision petitioner was
convicted under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Provision
Act, it is for the prosecution to prove that the revision petitioner committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
a cruelty towards P.W.1, which comes under the purview of explanation
found in Clause “a” and “b” of Section 498(A) of IPC. Further, it is
contended that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses did not
disclose the fact that the alleged additional demand made by the revision
petitioner is not in connection with the marriage, which solemnised between
the revision petitioner and P.W.1. Therefore, the allegation levelled against
the revision petitioner in respect of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has
also not been within the ambit of said Act. He would further submit that the
Courts below without considering those aspects, convicted the revision
petitioner and sentenced as above, which is erroneous in law.
13. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent police would contend that the evidence let in
by the prosecution witnesses in respect to the occurrence are all would
sufficient to hold that the revision petitioner committed an offence under
Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According
to him, interference of this Court in the findings arrived by the Courts below
does not necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
14. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side.
15. It is the case that there was no dispute that P.W.1 is the wife
of the revision petitioner, further, it is also not in dispute that during the
time of their marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave 25 Sovereigns of gold and
Rs.30,000/- to the revision petitioner as Sridhana. In respect to the payment
of Sridhana property, the evidence given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not
disclose that the same has been paid to the revision petitioner only upon the
demand made by him at the time of marriage.
16. Herein it is the case, the evidence given by the prosecution
witnesses disclosed the fact that before the marriage, the revision petitioner
has running a hotel business at Ernakulam and after the marriage, when the
revision petitioner moved to Ernakulam for continuing the hotel business,
P.W.1 wanted to accompany with him and while such time, she requested
the revision petitioner to take her to Ernakulam. In otherwise, only in the
said occasion, the revision petitioner herein told to P.W.1 to bring
Rs.1,00,000/- for searching a house at Ernakulam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
17. In respect to the occurrence, the evidence given by P.W.1 is
quite clear that the alleged additional dowry demanded by the revision
petitioner is not in connection with their marriage. At this juncture, it would
relevant to see the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 684, wherein, our Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as follows:-
“ In our view, both the trial Court and the High Court
failed to appreciate that the demand, if at all made by
the appellant on the deceased for purchasing a
computer to start a business six months after the
marriage, was not in connection with the marriage and
was not really a “dowry demand” within the meaning
of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
10.This Court has held in Appasaheb vs. State of
Maharashtra (SCC pp. 726-27, para 11)
“11. in view of the aforesaid definition of the
word 'dowry' any property or valuable security
should be given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly at or before or any time
after the marriage and in connection with the
marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the
giving or taking of property or valuable security
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
must have some connection with the marriage of
the parties and a correlation between the giving
or taking of property or valuable security with
the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a
penal provision it has to be strictly construed.
Dowry is a fairly well-known social custom or
practice in India. It is well-settled principle of
interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed
with reference to a particular trade, business or
transaction and words are used which everybody
conversant with that trade, business or
transaction knows or understands to have a
particular meaning in it, then the words are to be
construed as having that particular meaning in it,
then the words are to be construed as having that
particular meaning. (See Union of India vs.
Garware Nylons Ltd. and Chemical and Fibres of
India Ltd. vs. Union of India)”.
18. Applying the said principles narrated by our Hon'ble Apex
Court with the case on hand, herein also, P.W.1 had given a categorical
evidence that only to set up the separate house in Ernakulam, he requested
P.W.1 to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and the same did not comes under the purview
of Dowry and thereby, convicting the revision petitioner under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act is nothing but an erroneous under the said provision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
19. As far as the conviction and sentence awarded under Section
498(A) of IPC is concerned, it is for the prosecution to show that the
demand made by the revision petitioner before P.W.1 and towards her
parents, is an unlawful demand. Further, it is necessary to prove that P.W.1
was subjected to cruelty as contemplated clause (a) of explanation under
Section 498(A) of IPC. In this regard, first we should decide whether the
demand made by the revision petitioner is unlawful one or not. As already
said the categorical evidences given by the prosecution witnesses are quite
clear that only in order to set up a separate house at Ernakulam, the revision
petitioner demanded P.W.1 to bring Rs.1,00,000/-, further in earlier
paragraphs of this judgment, it was decided that the amount asked by the
revision petitioner is not comes under the purview of Dowry.
20. In otherwise, in respect to the unlawful demand, in a case of
Ramesh Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1992 CRI.L.J.1444
the High Court of Allahabd has held as follows:-
“A complaint under Section 498(A) of IPC could succeed
only if it can be proved that there was an “unlawful
demand” by the husband of some money. Assuming that
the husband had asked the wife to bring some jewellery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
this by itself could not be unlawful demand as no law
would punish mere demand without settlement of dowry at
the time of marriage. It may in some cases be that it the
husband makes a demand through his wife it may also be
conceded by the father-in-law and if that is done, the
demand would not become unlsawful and, therefore,
subsequent refusal by the father-in-law is not a
determinative factor whether the demand was unlawfully
made unless the said demand can come within the
definition of dowry.”
So, the above narrated observations is quite clear, being the reason that the
demand made by the revision petitioner is not comes under the purview of
Dowry. It should also be decided that asking the said amount by the revision
petitioner is not an unlawful demand.
21. In the said circumstances, it should be necessary to find out
whether the revision petitioner committed cruelty towards P.W.1 in order to
achieve his norms. It is difficult to straitjacket the term 'cruelty' by means of
a definition, because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for
one may not constitute cruelty for another person. It is a settled law that
sporadic incidents of ill-treatment by husband do not attract definition of
cruelty as these were aimed at pressuring wife for divorce and not aimed at
pressuring her to satisfy demand of property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
22. In this case, a conjoint reading of the entire evidence given by
the prosecution witnesses, none of the witnesses gave evidence in support of
the case of the prosecution as stated about the illtreatment committed by the
revision petitioner towards his wife. Further, there was no direct evidence
about the harassment.
23. The specific evidence given by P.W.1 is that only due to non-
payment of amount, which was asked by the revision petitioner, he is
refused to led a matrimonial life with her. On the other hand, P.W.4-
Murugan, who is the relative of P.W.1, who arranged the marriage, gave
evidence as after the marriage, both P.W.1 and the revision petitioner leads
a matrimonial life for the period of one year, he gave further evidence that
after the marriage, the elder members of P.W.1's family requested the
revision petitioner for not go to Kerala and the same was denied by the
revision petitioner. In this regard, the revision petitioner demanded to Rs.
1,00,000/- for doing a business in Tamilnadu. Apart from that, P.W.5-
Vembu, who is the father of P.W.1, gave evidence in his cross-examination
as due to the reason that the revision petitioner was went to the Kerala, P.W.
1 refused to stay in her matrimonial home.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
24. Therefore, to cull out the entire evidence given by P.W.4 and
P.W.5 and the evidence given by P.W.1, did not make a specific allegations
against the revision petitioner as he has committed any offence, which
comes under the purview of cruelty. The witnesses examined on the side of
the prosecution had admitted in their cross-examination as the revision
petitioner filed a HMOP in Thoothukudi Court, wherein, he prayed the
relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, the entire circumstances
narrates the same fact that P.W.1 insisted to set up a separate family in
Tamilnadu and since the same was refused by the revision petitioner, this
case has been foisted.
25. In this occasion, in a case of Satya Narayan v. State reported
in 2003 Crl.L.J. NOC 185 (M), it was held that if there was no direct
evidence about the illtreatment, conviction under Section 498(A) of IPC is
not maintainable.
26. From the above, I am of the considered opinion that the
evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is not in the form to accusing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
the revision petitioner that he had committed cruelty towards his wife and
also he made unlawful demand towards P.W.1. In the absence of evidence
in respect of the said aspects, convicting the accused under Section 498(A)
of IPC is found not correct. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
conviction and sentence rendered by the Courts below under Section 498(A)
of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be set aside.
27. In fine, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, by the learned
Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.543 of 2013, dated
08.10.2015 and the same was confirmed by the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in C.A.No.115 of 2015,
dated 25.11.2016, are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of all
the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner shall stand
cancelled.
21.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
To:-
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural.
2. The Additional Mahila Court,
Tirunelveli.
3.The III-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.22 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl.RC(MD)No.22 of 2017
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
