Uma vs Arivalagan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3393 Mad

                                                              1

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED: 23.02.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.R.C.(MD).No.104 of 2020

                     Uma                                                    ...Petitioner

                                                                  Vs.

                     Arivalagan                                             ...Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401
                     Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.807 of 2019 in
                     C.A.No.02 of 2019 dated 06.12.2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Learned
                     Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai and set aside the same by
                     allowing the revision petition.


                                        For Petitioner    : Mr.K.Baalsundharam
                                        For Respondent    : Mr.M.Suresh


                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai in

Cr.M.P.No.807 of 2019 in C.A.No.2 of 2019 dated 06.12.2019, thereby

dismissing the petition filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C to receive the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis additional evidence.

2. The petitioner is the complainant and on her complaint, the case

has been registered for the offences under Section 498(A), 494 read with

Section 109 of IPC as against eight accused persons. The first accused is

her husband and the second accused is the second wife of the first

accused.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against

the first and second accused for the offences under Section 498-A, 494

and against the third to eighth accused persons under Section 498-A, 494

read with Section 109 of IPC and the same has been taken cognizance on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in C.C.No.211 of

2008 and the Trial Court convicted the first accused, namely the husband

of the petitioner herein and others were acquitted. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file

of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

4. While pending the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition under

Section 391 of Cr.P.C to receive the deposition of the second accused

made in S.T.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Aranthangi as an additional evidence to prove that the second

accused is the wife of the first accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Further, the petitioner, to

substantiate the husband and wife relationship before the Appellate

Court, she filed a petition to receive the deposition as an additional

evidence.

5. On perusal of the the judgment rendered in S.T.C.No.211 of

2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, it

revealed that the evidences of prosecution witnesses and Ex.P2, P3, P6

and P8 are sufficient to prove the valid marriage between the first

accused and the second accused. The evidences of witnesses are cogent,

coherent and inspired the confidence of the Trial Court and convicted the

first accused for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC,

whereas, the Trial Court acquitted the other accused persons for the

offences under Section 494 and 109 of IPC. Therefore, there is no

dispute that the first accused married the second accused as second wife.

The only question is at the time of marriage of the second accused,

whether, she had knowledge about the marriage between the petitioner

and the first accused.

6. On perusal of the deposition of the second accused made in

S.T.C.No.141 of 2018, which is sought to be marked as an additional

evidence, it revealed that the second accused categorically denied the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

question that she had no knowledge about the marriage between the first

accused and the petitioner herein and no information was given to her.

Therefore, no purpose would be served by marking the deposition of the

second accused made in S.T.C.No.141 of 2018 in the present case.

7. That apart, the second accused is not dead and when she is alive,

as per Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972, it cannot be invoked and

the deposition of the second accused cannot be taken into account as an

additional evidence. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the

petition. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by

the Court below.

8. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

23.02.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Lm

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

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

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

Lm

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.104 of 2020

23.02.2022

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