Madras High Court
M.Venkateswaran vs The State Rep.By on 21 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
M.Venkateswaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station,
Chennai .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction
imposed in judgment dated 27.06.2017, passed by learned XV Fast Track
Court, to set aside the conviction imposed in judgment dated 27.06.2017
passed by XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai where in partly
allowed in order in C.C.No.221 of 2008 on the file of IV M.M., Saidapet,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kotteswaran
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Courts below regarding the offences under Section 498A of
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Though the petitioner and others were charged for
offences under Sections 498A , 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, the trial
Court held the revision petitioner, who is the 1 st accused, alone guilty of
offences under Sections 498A, 406 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the
accused as follows:-
Rank of the Charges Findings Punishment
accused
1st accused U/s. 498 A of IPC Found guilty Convicted and
sentenced to undergo
three years Simple
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/-; in default
to undergo 2 months
S.I.
U/s. 406 of Found guilty Convicted and
I.P.C sentenced to undergo
one year Simple
Imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
Rank of the Charges Findings Punishment
accused
Section 4 of Found guilty Convicted and
Dowry sentenced to undergo
Prohibition Act one year Simple
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-; in default
to undergo one month
S.I.
3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
petitioner herein preferred C.A.No.22 of 2017 and same was heard and
decided by the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which partly
allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner herein for the charge
under Section 406 of IPC, whereas, confirmed the sentence and
conviction for offences under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
submit that the marriage which was solemnised on 31.03.2006, broke
down within three days an the day of their marriage reception held in a
hotel. During the reception there was quarrel between the petitioner and
his brother-in-law i.e., the brother of the defacto complainant. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
quarrel ended in into physical altercation. Being humiliated by the said
altercation, the petitioner herein left the reception hall. Thereafter, he tried
his best to reconcile through e-mail and phone for nearly four months, but
due to her ego and family pressure, she did not come to any terms.
Therefore, he was forced to file a divorce petition.
5. To counter and get over her fault and her family members
fault, the complaint has been filed as if he demanded gold jewels and
money for the marriage as dowry, since his demand was not made, he
walked out during the reception.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also
submit that the complaint to portrait the petitioner as a man of immorality
and they have also made an allegation that he was married and also he is
making all attempts to get married again by suppressing the earlier
marriage with the defacto complainant and submitting that the Courts
below have failed to consider the sequence of the events and the
documents produced, more particularly, the entire videograph taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
during the reception which is fatal to the prosecution.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the
respondent would submit that the prosecution has proved the case by
examining 15 witnesses and marked 46 exhibits. Though the defence has
examined and marked 10 exhibits, it no way discharge the burden of
presumption against them. The break down of the marriage within 3 days
and the walk out of the petitioner herein during the reception is evidence
to show that the petitioner was expected something unlawful and illegal
which cannot be met by the defacto complainant and her family
members. The prosecution through its witnesses has adduced evidence to
show that the break down of the marriage within three days of
solemnised was purely due to cruelty caused by the petitioner to the
defacto complainant and due to unreasonable demand of dowry.
8. The perusal of evidence besides the finding of the
appellate Court go to show that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt
that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
herein was solemnised on 31.03.2006. The appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the evidence has acquitted the petitioner herein for the
offence under Section 406 of IPC, however, confirmed the conviction and
sentence for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. The prime contention of the petitioner is that there is no
proof for demand and no evidence to show that the break down of
marriage was due to demand of dowry or cruelty caused by the petitioner
herein. Pointing out the marriage was a short lived marriage for only three
days and the possibility of allegations causing mental or physical cruelty
is highly doubtful. Even according to the prosecution, if there was some
quarrel in connection with the demand of dowry during the reception and
the same has been been videographed, the best evidence will be the
videograph, which voluntarily withheld by the prosecution in spite of the
memo filed by the petitioner for production of videograph. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the correctness and
legality of the finding of the Courts below requires revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also
submit that Ex.D1 to Ex.D10 and the deposition of the appellant were not
properly appreciated, which has led to miscarriage of justice. It is an
admitted fact that the betrothal between PW.4 and the petitioner herein
took place on 03.02.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner was infected with
Chickenpox and there are evidence to speak, for the said reason, there
was some delay in conducting the marriage and at last on 31.03.2006, the
marriage was solemnised.
11. According to PW.1, who is an independent witness,
before coming to the marriage hall there was some misunderstanding
between the family members of the bride and the family members of the
bridegroom. There was dispute regarding certain customary ceremonies
to be conducted after the marriage solemnised. Thereafter, the dispute
was resolved and on 02.04.2006, the reception was arranged.
12. PW.11 / Videographer, who covered the event, had
deposed that the reception was organised at Aishwarya Mahal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
Koyambedu, Chennai. At that time, there was heated arguments between
the mother of the defacto complainant on one side and the father and
brother of the petitioner on the other side. The petitioner and his family
members refused to co-operate with him for taking photos. When he
enquired, they told that due to dispute regarding jewels, they are fighting.
Soon thereafter, the petitioner and his family members walked out from
the reception hall. This witness was subjected to cross examination. In the
cross examination, he has reiterated that he heard that the dispute was
because of jewels agreed to be given. But he could not identify the person
who informed that to him. He has admitted that he has covered the
petitioner, who was frequently moving on and off the dias agitatedly.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact would
submit that the said photograph was not produced and this witness to the
occurrence was only hearsay.
14. This Court is of the view that PW.1 and PW.11 are
independent witnesses, who have spoken broadly about the arrangement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
made prior to the marriage and the incident took place during the
reception. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein walked out from
the reception hall abruptly and thereafter the defacto complainant and the
petitioner never got united, though there are some materials to show that
there were contacting through e-mail and phone. This may not sufficient
to show that the withdrawal of the matrimonial home in the middle of
reception, could not have caused any mental cruelty to the defacto
complainant.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner has mounted the witness box and established his innocence
and marked 10 Exhibits to show that there was no demand of dowry.
16. The perusal of the defence documents, particularly, the
alleged conversation between the defacto complainant and the petitioner
herein after their separation from the reception hall on 02.04.2006, only
reinforced the fact that the defacto complainant / PW.4 was subjected to
mental cruelty by this petitioner. Particularly, the alleged conversation on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
18.05.2006 would show that the petitioner has admitted causing notice
through his counsel to get divorce with all falsehood and justify the same
on the pretext that the notice was issued only to pressurise the defacto
complainant to join him. However, he also candidly admits that he
demanded 100 sovereigns of jewel, but had pleaded that he was forced to
demand 100 sovereigns at that point of time. To cap in the course of the
conversation, the defacto complainant has said by deceiving her, the
petitioner making her mentally sick and therefore, she has no interest in
continuing any conversation with him. This gives quietus in the
petitioner's case and this Court finds no illegality or error in the findings
of the appellate Court judgment, which has confirmed the conviction
under Section 498A of IPC.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
now the defacto complainant is married and settled down in abroad and
the case is pending for nearly 16 years. Taking note of the fact, some
leniency may be shown to the petitioner regarding the sentence ordered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
18. Taking note of the submissions and other factors while
confirming the conviction under Section 498A and Section 4 of D.P. Act,
this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of IPC shall be reduced
from three years Simple Imprisonment to two years Simple
Imprisonment. As far as the sentence imposed for the offence under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, one year Simple
Imprisonment is confirmed. The period of sentence shall run concurrently.
19. In the result,
(i) this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
(ii) the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused
by the appellate Court is modified to two years S.I. instead of three years
S.I., for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
(iii) the period of imprisonment already undergone by the
revision petitioner shall be set off. The learned trial judge shall take
steps to enforce this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
21.06.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station,
Chennai
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
Crl.R.C.No.1017 of 2017
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
