Madras High Court
Prabhu vs State Rep. By on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4627 and 4629 of 2021
Prabhu ...Petitioner
-Vs-
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur North.
(Cr.No.20 of 2017) ...Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. call for the records in C.A.No.124 of 2018 on the file of I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment of
conviction dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.596 of 2017 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*******
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
ORDER
The criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction
made in C.A.No.124 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment of conviction dated
22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.596 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Tiruppur.
2 Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, wife of the petitioner, a
case was registered in Cr.No.20 of 2017 against the petitioner and his parents
for the offence under Sections 498 (A), 194(B) and 506(2) of IPC and after
completing investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, which was taken on file in
C.C.No.596 of 2017. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, after
hearing the respective counsel, by judgment dated 22.11.2018 acquitted all
the accused for the offence under Sections 294(B) and 506(2) of IPC and
convicted all the accused only for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
and imposed fine of Rs.500/- to each of the accused, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Aggrieved against
the judgment of conviction, all the accused have preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.124 of 2018. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur, after hearing both the counsel, by judgment dated 19.03.2021
confirmed the conviction against the petitioner/A1 and set aside the
conviction recorded by the trial Court against A2 and A3 and acquitted them.
Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner/A1 is before this
Court with the present criminal appeal.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 would
submit that false case has been foisted against the petitioner. P.W.1 in her
evidence has stated that the petitioner dashed her head on the wall and she
sustained injuries and bleeding was also there, but to prove the same no
medical record was produced by the prosecution and there is no independent
witness to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. P.Ws.2 to 7 are the close
relative of P.W.1 and further they are residing in somewhere else, who
probably could not have seen the incidents. In the absence of any independent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
witness to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, recording conviction against
the petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) is unsafe.
3.1 The learned counsel would further submit that from the very
same materials, the lower appellate Court, while re-appreciating the evidence,
found the A2 and A3 not guilty for the offences charged against them, but,
erroneously came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the offence
under Section 498-A IPC and confirmed the conviction, which is against the
law.
3.2 Therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is liable to
be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to acquittal.
4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police would submit that the petitioner and the defacto
complainant/P.W.1 are husband and wife. After marriage, the accused
demanded money and caused cruelty and there was frequent quarrel. Further
the petitioner has illegal intimacy with the other woman and the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
used to beat P.W.1 and harass her physically. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 7
are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and since some of the witnesses
are relative to P.W.1, their evidence cannot be thrown out. The lower
appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence confirmed the
conviction against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC,
which does not call for any interference of this Court.
5 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and
perused the entire materials available on record.
6 It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is no independent witness to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. It
is to be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner used
to beat P.W.1 either before any independent witnesses or in the public view
and hence non examination of any independent witness is not fatal to the case
of the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the petitioner
used to beat her often by demanding money and also scolded in a filthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
language. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 7 also corroborated with the evidence of
P.W.1 and since some of the witnesses are relative, evidence of P.W.1 cannot
brushed aside, especially when it is cogent, consistent and corroborated with
the evidence of other witnesses.
8 It is settled proposition of law that while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity in
appreciation of evidence while deciding the case by the Courts below and it
cannot stepped into the shoes of the appellate Court.
9 From a careful reading of evidence of P.W.1 the victim and
other witnesses P.Ws.2 to 7, it is clear that the petitioner caused cruelty on
P.W.1 physically and mentally by demanding money and also had illegal
intimacy with other woman and P.Ws.2 to 7 have categorically stated about
the demand of money and the cruelty caused by the petitioner to P.W.1.
There is no reason to discord or disbelieve the evidence of the above
witnesses and the lower appellate Court also after re-appreciating the entire
evidence, confirmed the conviction, in which, this Court does not find any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
perversity.
10 For the foregoing reasons, this criminal revision stands
dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the
petitioner to serve remaining period of imprisonment, if any.
12.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
cgi
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.
3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur North.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021
Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4627 and 4629 of 2021
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
