Madras High Court
P.Senthil vs The State on 26 September, 2022
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
P.Senthil ...Appellant
Vs.
The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
W-8, All Woman Police Station,
Chennai. ...Respondent
Criminal Appeal Case filed under Sections 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set
aside the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3, in S.C.No.316 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*******
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3, in S.C.No.316 of 2018.
2 The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2017
against the appellant and five others for the offence under Sections 495,
498A and 313 r/w 109 IPC against the appellant/A1, 495 r/w 109 IPC,
498A and 313 r/w 109 IPC against A2 to A5 and 495 r/w 109 IPC, 498A
and 313 IPC against A6. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the
learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, which was
taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2018. Since the offence charged against the
accused are triable only by the Court of Session, the case was committed to
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, who has taken
the case on file in S.C.No.316 of 2018 and made over the same to the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex,
Chennai, for disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
3 Before the trial Court, in order to bring home the charges
levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to
8 and marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the defence
no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
4 The learned trial Judge, after trial and hearing of arguments
advanced on either side, by judgment dated 16.12.2019, acquitted all the
accused and convicted the first accused/appellant only for the offence under
Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
5 Aggrieved over the finding and the judgment of conviction,
the first accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
6 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the appellant/A1 is husband of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and A2
to A6 are in-laws of the defacto complainant. There are two incidents
alleged to have taken place and the first incident is that the appellant
alleged to have dashed the head of the defacto complainant against the wall
and caused injuries, which is not proved by the prosecution by producing
any medical certificate. The second incident is that the accused 2 to 6, being
the in-laws alleged to have committed cruelty against the defacto
complainant and the appellant herein stood as a mute spectator. It is to be
noted that when A2 to A6 were acquitted of the charge under Section 498A
IPC by the trial Court, convicting the appellant/A1 for the offence under
Section 498A is not justified in law. The trial Court disbelieved the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses as far as the accused 2 to 6 are
concerned for the offence under Section 498A IPC, but, relying on the same
set of evidence convicted the appellant alone for the offence under Section
498A,which is against law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
6.1 The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 is defacto
complainant and other witnesses P.W.2 to 6 are relative of P.W.1 and they
are interested and hear say witnesses, which cannot be relied upon by the
trial Court for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A.
The trial Court failed to note that the defacto complainant has not lodged
the complaint soon after the occurrence i.e. the alleged incident took place
on 19.04.2017, but, the complaint was lodged only on 21.05.2017. The
judgment of the trial Court would speak about the co-dependency attitude
of the appellant, which is nothing but natural in a joint family and in a joint
family every one depends on others and this is nature of joint family and
this has been found fault by the trial Court as a crime. The trial Court has
also discussed about the inconvenience faced by P.W.1 in the joint family
because of the inability of the appellant to raise upto the occasion and to
prevent other accused from committing cruelty against the defacto
complainant, which cannot be construed as cruelty and the finding of the
trial Court with regard to the same is unsustainable in law. To support his
contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1. (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 73
2. (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 438
3. (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 330
4. (2013) 16 Supreme Court Cases 421
5. (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 48
6. (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667
6.2 The evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.8 itself shows that
there was no fair investigation and the evidence of prosecution witnesses
shows that there is material contradictions regarding the date of miscarriage
for P.W.1. From the evidence of the Doctor P.W.6, it is clear that the
miscarriage was not happened on the date of the alleged second incident
and the same takes away the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1. The trial
Court has miserably failed to note all the above and has wrongly convicted
the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which warrants
interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
7 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent would submit that the defacto complainant is wife of the
appellant/A1, A2 and A3 are parent of the appellant and A3 to A6 are in-
laws of the defacto complainant. After the marriage, the appellant and his
family members demanded more money and two wheeler and since the
parent of the defacto complainant could not meet the demands made by
them, they caused cruelty against the defacto complainant. Further at one
occasion, in the presence of the appellant, the other accused caused mental
cruelty against the defacto complainant and the appellant kept quite as a
mute spectator without even preventing them. P.W.1 the defacto
complainant has clearly narrated the cruelty caused by the appellant and the
other accused and even though the trial Court has acquitted the other
accused for want of sufficient evidence, has rightly convicted the appellant
for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which does not call for any
interference of this Court.
8 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
9 According to the appellant P.Ws.2 to 5 are interested witnesses
and no other witness was examined to prove the cruelty alleged to have
caused to by the appellant. It is to be noted that in the matrimonial disputes,
only the family members can notice the incidents, which occurred in the
home i.e. within the four wall and they can only come forward to give
evidence and the third party, even if they also know, will not be ready to
give evidence and they would think that it is a family dispute and the
husband and wife will quarrel each other today and tomorrow would join
together why should they poke their nose unnecessarily in the family
dispute especially between the husband and wife. P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly
spoken about the cruelty caused by the appellant against the defacto
complainant. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 could not be simply
brushed aside, since they are interested witnesses as contended by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
10 The learned counsel has taken a defence that the complaint was
not lodged immediately soon after the occurrence. It is seen that the defacto
complainant being a newly married girl, if she has any quarrel or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
misunderstanding with her husband, naturally she would not reveal the
same with any one and would not rush to the police station to lodge the
complaint and of course the parents of the girl would also think about her
future and it would take considerable time to settle the issue and even when
the defacto complainant took treatment for her injuries, the parent or the
defacto complainant did not say that the newly married groom only caused
the injuries. Therefore mere non production of Medical Certificate or not
lodging the complaint soon after the occurrence is not a fatal to the case of
the prosecution, especially in the matrimonial dispute. However, P.W.1 has
categorically stated about the incidents and P.Ws.2 to 5 have also
corroborated the same and therefore as far as commission of offence under
Section 498A by the appellant is concerned, the witnesses have clearly
spoken and prosecution has proved with cogent evidence. As far as the
other charges are concerned, since there was no concrete evidence as
against the accused, the trial Court extended the benefits of doubts in favour
of the accused and acquitted. The decisions referred to by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant would not applicable to the present case
on hand, since every case has its own facts and it may not be same as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
other case and in the same way the facts and circumstances of both the cases
are distinguished.
11 This Court, being an appellate Court, has to necessarily re-
appreciate the entire evidence independently and give its finding.
Accordingly this Court, being an appellate Court, while re-visiting the
entire evidence found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC and there is no sound reason or ground to interfere
with the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court.
12 In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed as devoid of
merit and substance. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant to
undergo remaining period of sentence, if any.
07.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
cgi
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex,
Chennai – 3.
2. The Inspector of Police, W-8, All Woman Police Station, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.A.No.41 of 2020
26.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
