Sakthivel vs State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 1391 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 28.01.2022

                                                    CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                              Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

                Sakthivel                                      ... Petitioner

                                                      Versus

                1.State rep. By
                  The Inspector of police,
                  All Women Police Station,
                  Suramangalam,
                  Salem.
                  (Crime No.18 of 2011)

                2.Akhilapriya

                R2 suo-motto impleaded as per order in
                Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015, dated 20.01.2022.             ... Respondents

                Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal
                Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in C.C.No.29 of 2013 on the file of
                the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Salem, by order, dated 17.10.2014
                convicting the petitioner and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous
                Imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine in default three months Simple Imprisonment
                and it was modified by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                Salem in C.A.No.151 of 2014, by order, dated 18.06.2015, modifying the
                sentence alone to six months.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/6
                                  Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                2/6
                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

                                  For Petitioner       : Mr.K.Prasanna
                                                        and
                                                   Ms.C.S.Rajalakshmi
                                                   Legal Aid Counsel

                                  For R1                : Mr.L.A.J.Selvam
                                                   Government Advocate
                                                   (Criminal Side)

                                  For R2               : No Appearance

                                                      ORDER

This Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015 has been filed by the

petitioner/first accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate,

Additional Magistrate Court, Salem, dated 17.10.2014 in C.C.No.29 of 2013,

thereby, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment

and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Simple

Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.151 of 2014, dated 18.06.2015, thereby,

confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code and reducing the punishment from one year Rigorous Imprisonment

to that of six months Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. In this case, already this Court had appointed Mrs.C.S.Rajalakshmi, as

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

Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

learned Legal Aid Counsel. However, in the subsequent hearing,

Mr.K.Prasanna, learned Counsel appears and argued the matter today. The

learned Counsel submitted that instead of considering the matter on merits, this

court may be pleased to consider the fact that the petitioner and the defacto

complainant, who is impleaded as the second respondent in this case, have, since,

been divorced by a judgment, dated 04.01.2013 in H.M.O.P.No.179 of 2011 on

the file of the Family Court, Salem and have parted ways permanently and the

petitioner had also been in prison for forty days and therefore, requested this

Court to consider the issue of sentence appropriately. The learned Legal Aid

Counsel would also adopt the said submissions.

3. Mr.L.A.J.Selvam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing on behalf of the prosecution, on instructions, would submit that the

petitioner/accused was in prison for a period of forty days.

4. Considering the submissions made by both the Counsels for the

petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), considering

the age of the accused now being sixty years, considering the fact that the parties

have since divorced in the year 2013 itself and have parted ways and are living

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

Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

separately, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court from the period of six months Rigorous

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

Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J., grs Imprisonment to that of the period already undergone. The Fine amount shall

remain the same.

5. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed accordingly.

                                                                                         28.01.2022

                Index : yes/no
                Internet     : yes
                Speaking order
                grs


                To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4.The Inspector of police, All Women Police Station, Suramangalam, Salem.

Crl.R.C.No.852 of 2015

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