Varadharajan vs The State Rep.By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 10658 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 21.06.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                               Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

                     1.Varadharajan
                     2.Ramaiyan
                     3.Sangumathi                                            ... Petitioners

                                                         Vs.

                     The State rep.by its,
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     All Women Police Station,
                     Ariyalur.
                     (Crime No.9 of 2004)                                    ... Respondent


                     Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order
                     passed in Crl.A.No.2 of 2013 dated 27.02.2014 on the file of the Sessions
                     Court, Ariyalur Division, Ariyalur confirming the order passed in
                     C.C.No.496 of 2004 dated 10.06.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
                     Ariyalur and set aside the same.




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014




                                  For Petitioners     : Mr. V. Illanchezian

                                  For Respondent      : Mr. N.S. Sugnathan,
                                                        Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                                                       ORDER

This criminal revision case is filed to call for the records

pertaining to the order passed in Crl.A.No.2 of 2013 dated 27.02.2014 on

the file of the Sessions Court, Ariyalur Division, Ariyalur confirming the

order passed in C.C.No.496 of 2004 dated 10.06.2013 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and set aside the same.

2. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.496 of 2004 on

the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur on the complaint given by one Rani,

wife of the first accused/petitioner.

3. The case was registered against these petitioners for the

offence under Section 498(A), r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 and

109 IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

4. The sum and substance of the complaint is that

P.W.1/Rani married first petitioner-Varadharajan in the year 1993. After

three years, a female child was born to them. At the time of marriage, her

father gave her enough sridhana and they were living peacefully. The said

Varadharajan got employment at Singapore and went to Singapore and

stayed there for two years, in two spells and returned back to the Village

and thereafter, had developed intimacy with the another lady and started

torturing P.W.1 along with his parents demanding for more dowry. His

parents are arrayed as A2 and A3.

4(i). At one point of time, there was panchayat between them in

the presence of elders of the Villagers. But did not yielded any result. Rani

was thrown away from the matrimonial home for not meeting out the

demand of dowry.

4(ii). With the above allegation, the petitioners went for trial.

Prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 2 exhibits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

4(ii). The trial Court held the petitioners are guilty of offences

under i) Sections 498(A) IPC r/w 109 IPC and ii) Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w 109 IPC. They were sentenced them to undergo one

year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay

the fine, one week simple imprisonment for offence under Section 498(A)

r/w 109, for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 109

IPC, sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and fine of

Rs.1,000/- in default to pay the fine, one week simple imprisonment. The

period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

4(iii). Aggrieved by that order of sentence and conviction, the

petitioners have preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Ariyalur.

4(iv). Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.2 of

2013, after re-appreciating the evidence has confirmed the judgment of the

trial Court, holding that it has covered all the aspects of the case and in total

consonance with the evidence on record. Observing that there is no

infirmity or conflict in the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate Court

confirmed the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

5. Being held guilty and convicted by the trial Court and

confirmed by the appellate Court, the accused 1 to 3 are before this Court,

by way of revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

marriage took place in the year 1993 and the complaint given after 11 years

which per-se show that there was no cruelty and demand of dowry.

Furthermore, none of these petitioners are in need of finance when first

petitioner himself has earned through his employment at Singapore and

would submit that the statement of P.W.3, the father of the defacto

complainant financed the first petitioner for his foreign employment, is not

based on any record or evidence. While so, the Courts below ought to have

acquitted them and the finding of the appellate Court, confirming the

erroneous order required reversal.

7. This Court on perusing the order passed by the Courts

below, finds that the prosecution has clearly proved the charge against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

first petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The persons affected have

deposed before the Court and their deposition stands unimpeachable.

However, what this Court could find from their deposition that their

allegations are squarely against the first petitioner, who is the husband of

the defacto complainant and only a vague reference is made against the

other two petitioners being the parents of the first petitioner. Furthermore,

the other independent witnesses also have not attributed any serious

allegations against A2 and A3 which will constitute the crime of cruelty.

8. In the said circumstances, the correctness of the order

passed by the Courts below, as far as the first petitioner, holds good.

Therefore, the sentence imposed on him for the offence under i) Section

498(A), and ii) Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 109 IPC, is

confirmed. As far as the second and third petitioners are concerned, for

want of reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt is extended to them and

acquitted from the charges.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

9. In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed against

the first petitioner. Petition to set aside the judgment of the trail Court in

C.C.No.496 of 2004 as confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.2 of

2013, is allowed in respect of A2 and A3. Fine amount, if any paid shall be

refunded to the petitioners/A2 and A3. The bail bonds executed by them,

stands cancelled. The trial Court shall secure the first accused and remand

him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.

10. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is partly

allowed.

21.06.2022

AT Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AT

To

1.The Sessions Court, Ariyalur Division, Ariyalur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ariyalur.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.618 of 2014

21.06.2022

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