Madras High Court
Sankar @ Arumugam vs The State Rep By Station House ... on 28 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
1.Sankar @ Arumugam
2.Venkatesan ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep by Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Cuddalore.
(Crime No.8/2008) ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in judgment dated 11.09.2014 made in
C.A.No.3 of 2014 passed by Sessions Court, Cuddalore, confirming the
judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2013 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore, made in
C.C.No.22/2013 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar
For respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioners / A.1 & A.2 in C.C.No.22 of 2013 was convicted
by the Judicial Magistrate - Additional Mahila Magistrate, Cuddalore by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
judgment dated 20.12.2013 and they were sentenced to undergo one
year Simple Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
2. Aggrieved against the same, they have preferred an appeal
before the Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore in Crl.A.No.3 of 2014.
The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by judgment dated
11.09.2014, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by Trial Court against which present revision is filed.
3. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to
P.3 were marked. On the side of the accused, no witness was
examined and no evidence was also marked.
4. The gist of the case is that on 11.04.2008, a Betrothal was
held between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant at her
residence at about 12.00 Noon. During the betrothal, it was decided
that, apart from Sthridhana, 20 sovereign of jewels, a two wheeler and
Rs.50,000/- valued house hold articles to be presented to the
bridegroom and the marriage was decided to held on 13.06.2008. For
the betrothal, around Rs.40,000/- has been expended by the defacto
complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
5. While this being so, on 24.04.2008, petitioner along with
three of their family members had come to the house of defacto
complainant and demanded 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1
Lakh in cash instead of two wheeler, for the reason that the petitioner
is employed in a Ceramic factory at Puducherry and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. Since, it was refused by the defacto
complainant family members, the marriage could not be held and
complaint had been lodged on 30.05.2008. P.W.7 received the
complaint, registered FIR, visited scene of occurrence, examined
witnesses and collected documents.
6. Thereafter, P.W.8 concluded investigation, filed charge sheet
against the petitioner and 3 others for offences under Section 417
I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court examined
P.W.1 to P.W.8, marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and on conclusion of the trial,
convicted the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate
Court as stated above.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that both the Courts below
have not analyzed the evidence and assessed the materials in its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
proper perspective. P.W.1 - bride has categorically stated that even
before the Betrothal, she got married. This was the reason for
dropping the marriage. Further P.W.1 to P.W.3 are from same family.
P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is the cousin brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 to
P.W.6 are the other members who attended the betrothal. He further
submitted that these witnesses are interested witnesses. They have
given an exaggerated version as though on the same day of betrothal,
marriage hall at Villiyanur Saraswathi Mandapam, which was booked
by the petitioners herein and thereafter, on further demand of dowry,
when the same was not paid, advance paid to the marriage hall has
been taken back by A.1 and the marriage hall registration canceled.
P.W.7 and P.W.8 the Investigating Officers have categorically stated
that they have not conducted any investigation to confirm the same.
The lower Court though had held that this allegation was not proved
and likewise held that the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. not proved.
8. The lower Court finding that P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 have
given exaggerated version, not accepted the same ought to have
acquitted the accused for dowry demand. On the same set of facts, the
lower Court disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, on one aspect
ought to have acquitted the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
9. He further submitted that even the betrothal notice Ex.P.1 is a
photo-stat copy which was marked with objection, P.W.1 admits that
she took no steps to perform the marriage. It is now submitted that
P.W.1 and A.1 got married to different persons and they are settled
with the new family. It is known fact that betrothal notice should be
retained by both the families. No reason given why the same could not
be traced. Likewise, the complaint in this case lodged, almost one
month 7 days after the dispute of the marriage. None of the witnesses
given any reason for the delay. These facts were not considered by the
Courts below.
10. P.W.2 the mother of P.W.1 during cross examination admits
that the bridegroom side requested for only 15 sovereigns of jewels. If
that being the conduct, there is no necessity for any demand of dowry.
The reason for not performing the marriage is due to the prior conduct
of P.W.1.
11. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in this
case, P.W.1 lodged complaint to P.W.7. On receipt of complaint - Ex.P.2,
F.I.R. - Ex.P.3 was registered. Immediately, P.W.7 visited the scene of
occurrence, enquired the witnesses present, thereafter, handed over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
the investigation to P.W.8 who conducted major portion of the
investigation and finally P.W.8 filed charge sheet. In this case, P.W.1 is
victim, P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the cousin brother, P.W.4
& P.W.6 are the family members who had attended the betrothal of
P.W.1.
12. During the betrothal, 20 soverigns of gold jewels, a two
wheeler and Rs.50,000/- were agreed to be presented. Ten days later,
petitioners along with three of their family members had come to the
house of P.W.1, demanded 40 soverigns of gold jewels and Rs.1 Lakh
in cash, which was not agreeable. Hence, the marriage not performed.
The reason for delay in lodging complaint is that the P.W.1 family
members were taking all steps to reconcile the dispute and to
somehow conduct the marriage. The accused was adamant and were
giving one reason or other. In fact, P.W.4 to 6 family members have
come to the house of accused to sort out the issue. After exhausting
all the avenues, having no other option, complaint was lodged on
30.05.2008. The delay was not for any other reason. Further in this
case, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 corroborate with each other. The
betrothal held on 11.04.2008 was not in dispute likewise marriage
fixed on 30.05.2008 is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
the marriage could not be held on 30.05.2008 and for what reason
marriage could not be held, no proper reason given, nor any
suggestion put to any of the witnesses. The trial Court finding the case
proved against the petitioners on the evidence and materials of the
prosecution had rightly convicted the petitioner and acquitted A.3 to
A.5. The lower Appellate Court independently assessed the evidence
and materials confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court. Hence
opposed this revision petition.
13. I have considered the submissions and on perusal of the
materials, it is seen that in this case, there are exaggeration by P.W.1
to P.W.3. The betrothal deed - Ex.P.1 is photo-stat copy which is
marked as Ex.P.1 on objection. P.W.7 - Investigating Officer admits
that original could not be secured. It is a known fact that Betrothal
deed is prepared in two copies, one to be retained by the bride and the
other to be retained by the bridegroom family which is the primary
event in a betrothal function. The deed - Ex.P.1 is in printed format,
later filled up. In Ex.P.1 - betrothal deed, there is no mention of the
date of marriage, the venue of the marriage hall, which cause serious
doubt. The genuineness of the Ex.P.1 is doubtful. The trial Court had
not given reasons for the objection made. Added to that, P.W.4 in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
evidence state that no betrothal deed was entered on 11.04.2008.
There is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6. Further,
there is no material to show that the marriage was fixed on
13.06.2008 and the marriage hall was booked and canceled. The
prosecution witnesses admit that the complaint was lodged since the
marriage was not held as agreed. The specific case of the petitioner is
that P.W.1 got already married, suppressing the same, betrothal was
held. On coming to know about the same, the marriage could not be
held. The primary doubt on Ex.P.1 the betrothal deed is not proved in
the manner known to law. The trial Court as well as the Lower
Appellate Court failed to consider these aspects and wrongly convicted
the petitioners. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. In view of the same, this Court allows the Revision setting
aside the conviction passed by the trial Court confirmed by the
Appellate Court and acquitted the accused from all charges.
28.04.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mrm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
To
1.Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Cuddalore.
2.The Sessions Court,
Cuddalore.
3.The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,
Cuddalore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J
mrm
Crl.R.C.No.399 of 2017
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
