Madras High Court
Thennarasu vs State Rep By Its on 8 September, 2022
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
Thennarasu
... Appellant
-Vs.-
State rep by its
The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Aynavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
.. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the order of conviction passed by the Mahalir
Sessions Court dated 28.11.2014 in S.C.No.471 of 2012 and allow the
appeal petition.
For Appellant : Mr.O.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction for the
offences under Section 420 IPC.
2. The short facts of the case is that the de facto complainant loved
the accused and they had sexual relationship before marriage. Later,
when the parents came to know about that, the betrothal ceremony was
conducted. Thereafter for some reason the solemnization of marriage did
not taken place. Hence, the complaint has been filed before the
respondent police.
3. On completion of Investigation, the final report was filed against
the appellant under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and against the father of
the appellant under Section 506(i) IPC. The prosecution examined 14
witnesses and the marked 9 exhibits. The photographs of the accused and
the de facto complainant taken during the Betrothal Ceremony was
marked as M.O.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, has held that
there is no evidence to show that the de facto complainant or his family
members were threatened by the second accused. Hence, the second
accused was acquitted for the offences under Section 506(i) IPC. As far
as the appellant herein is concerned, the trial Court finds that admittedly
the appellant and the de facto complainant had sex by consent and there
was no force or threats to make out the case for the offences under
Section 376 IPC. Hence appellant was acquitted of the charges under
Section 376 IPC where as, for refusing to marry her after engagement, the
trial Court had considered it as a cheating and convicted him for the
offences under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default 6 months
simple imprisonment.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the ingredient of Section 420 IPC has not made out for the offences
of this nature. There is no deception at the inception. Even according to
the prosecution, there is no inducement of delivery of any property, hence
the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that
the prosecution has proved that from the year 2007, the appellant and the
de facto complainant were in love. The Betrothal Ceremony was
conducted during the month of Avani in the year 2008. Expecting that,
the marriage is came to be solemnized after the month of Avani, the de
facto complainant had consent for sex. However, the second
accused/father of the first accused, demanded dowry and refused to
solemnize the marriage and therefore the Court below, though acquitted
the accused for offences under Section 376 IPC, had convicted him for
cheating to undergo 5 years imprisonment for the offences under Section
420 IPC.
7. This Court, on perusing the evidence of PW1, finds that there is
no whisper about any deception on the part of the appellants to attract
Section 420 IPC. The de facto complainant had deposed that the
proposal for marriage was aborted, since there was demand of dowry by
the second accused. As far as the first accused is concerned, who is the
appellant herein, there is no evidence that he had any criminal intention
of cheating the de facto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
8. For the said reason, this Court finds that the trial Court
judgment convicting the accused for offences under Section 420 IPC is
not sustainable, since there is no evidence against this appellant that he
deceived the de facto complainant with intention from the inception.
9. In the view of the above, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
Bail Bond is cancelled and the fine amount, which was paid, shall be
refunded to the first accused/appellant herein.
08.09.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
nsa
To
1.The Mahalir Sessions Court.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Aynavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
nsa
Crl.A.No.634 of 2014
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
