S.Kanagaraj vs State Rep By
2023 Latest Caselaw 16098 Mad

Madras High Court

S.Kanagaraj vs State Rep By on 11 December, 2023

Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated: 11.12.2023

                                                     CORAM :

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                              Crl.RC.No.911 of 2015
                                                       and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015


                     1. S.Kanagaraj

                     2. Pushpaveni

                     3. Sivagami

                     4. Saranya                           ... Petitioners/Accused 1,3,4 & 5

                                                        Vs.

                     State Rep by
                     The Station House Officer,
                     All Women Police Station,
                     (Crime No.14/2011)                    ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C.,
                     to set aside the Judgment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in
                     C.C.No.13/2012 dated 20.04.2015 and to set aside the consequent
                     Judgment confirming the above conviction passed by the learned III
                     Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in Crl.A.No.19/2015 dated
                     24.08.2015.

                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                        For Petitioners   : Mr.J.Rajmohan
                                        For Respondent    : Mr.K.S.Mohandoss
                                                           Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
                                                           Assisted by
                                                           Mr.A.Alexander
                                                           Government Advocate (Pondicherry)


                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment

passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in

Crl.A.No.19/2015 dated 24.08.2015 confirming the Judgment of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhucherry in C.C.No.13/2012 dated

20.04.2015.

2. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that

the marriage was an arranged marriage which was held on 12.09.2010. It

is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that

the wife as Complainant gave a Complaint on 15.06.2011 and that was a

first Complaint. It was given after eight months of the marriage. After

which, they were living as husband and wife. Subsequent to her giving

the first Complaint on 15.06.2011, the husband gave a lawyer's notice

dated 06.07.2011 seeking divorce. In the lawyer's notice, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis husband had stated that before marriage, the wife had a love affair and

therefore, she had not joined him. For the said lawyer's notice, she had

replied on 11.07.2011 in which she had made all these allegations. The

contents of the reply notice was converted as Complaint which was given

on 08.09.2011. For this Complaint, the Police had registered an FIR in

Cr.No.14/2011 for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC r/w. 34 of IPC

and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This case was investigated and

final report filed before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had after hearing both

parties viz., the Prosecution and the Defence, framed charges for the

offences under Section 498 A r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Since the Accused denied the charges, the trial was

ordered. In the trial, the Prosecution had examined the Witnesses P.W-1

to P.W-10 and marked documents under Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. On the side

of the Defence, no witness was examined and documents were marked

under Ex.D-1 to ExD-8. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate had convicted the Accused for the offence under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 498 A r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the

attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1(her evidence in

examination-in-chief) in which there is no incriminating evidence

regarding ingredients of Section 498 A of IPC i.e., either mental or

physical abuse of the Complainant/victim of crime. She had only stated

that the mother-in-law and father-in-law demanded seven sovereigns of

gold jewels whereas her father provided one sovereign of gold ring. In

the concluding part of the examination-in-chief, she had only stated that

she was taken to her parents house by the husband for Thala Deepavali.

After that, the husband did not come to her parents house and take her

back to the matrimonial home. Therefore, she alleges that the husband is

having relationship with his niece and her(the victim's) life had become

burden to her parents. Those facts will not attract the ingredients of

Section 498 A of IPC, to convict the Accused for the offence under

Section 498 A of IPC. Also, the learned Counsel for the Revision

Petitioners submitted that after his conviction, the wife had filed

HMOP.No.46/2017 before the learned Sub Judge, Cuddalore which was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis re-numbered as HMOP.No.17/2018 on the file of the Family Court,

Cuddalore. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the

evidence in HMOP which was a contested case where she had clearly

admitted that there was no physical abuse on her. Also, the learned

Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the wife was granted

the decree of divorce in HMOP.No.17/2018 on appreciation of evidence

on 25.06.2019.

5. In the case instituted by her, as it stands today, the Revision

Petitioners had been convicted, when there is no evidence incriminating

him regarding physical or mental abuse. The learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pondicherry in his Judgment in C.C.No.13/2012 had failed to

appreciate the fact that there was no incriminating material attracting the

offence under Section 498 A of IPC. Therefore, the conviction and

sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioners by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry confirmed in Appeal by the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge by Judgment in C.A.No.19/2015

dated 24.08.2015 is to be set aside as perverse and the Accused are to be

acquitted from the charges.

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

6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently objected to the

submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners stating

that there are materials available in the evidence of P.W-1. The evidence

of P.W-1 alone will be sufficient to convict the Accused. The trial Court

had assessed the evidence and the Appellate Court had re-assessed the

evidence. This Court as Revision Court cannot re-appreciate the

evidence. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there

is no merit in this case. The Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate is a well-reasoned Judgment confirmed by the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, this Revision lacks

merit. When there are concurrent finding of fact, this Court cannot re-

appreciate the evidence.

7. Point for Consideration

Whether the Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in C.C.No.13/2012 dated 20.04.2015 and confirmed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge in C.A.No.19/2015 dated 24.08.2015 is to be set aside as perverse?

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

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry. Perused the deposition of

P.W-1 to P.W-10, Documents under Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and the Judgment

of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Judgment of the learned

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, this Court need not re-

appreciate the evidence as it is a Court of Revision. It is sufficient to

consider whether the trial Court had convicted the Accused based on the

materials available before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to attract

the Provision of Section 498 A of IPC which is a question of application

of law. Therefore, the Revision regarding the application of law,

technicalities of law are valid ground to be considered by this Court. It is

true that on the facts, the Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate in C.C.No.13/2012 dated 20.04.2015 which was confirmed in

C.A.No.19/2015 dated 24.08.2015 by the learned III Additional District

and Sessions Judge. That does not mean this Court shall not consider the

evidence. For the limited purpose, whether there was ingredient of

Section 498 A of IPC as per the evidence of the Complainant as P.W-1,

the Court can consider her evidence and the Complaint under Ex.P-1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis whether it attracts under Section 498 A of IPC. On perusal of the

materials, the evidence of P.W-1 and the Complaint under Ex.P-1, it only

claims that her husband and his parents demanded seven sovereigns of

gold jewels for Thalai Deepavali, whereas parents of the

Complainant/P.W-1 had expressed their difficulties and had provided one

sovereign of gold ring to the husband/Accused in this case. As per the

evidence, the husband had accompanied the wife to her parents house.

After Deepavali, the husband did not come and take her back to the

matrimonial home. Further, her evidence stated that the husband

returned home at 11 p.m., daily and she had seen her husband taking his

niece on the pillion of the two wheeler which made her to pick up

quarrel with him and she understands that after Thala Deepavali, he is

living with his niece.

9. Nowhere in her examination-in-chief, she had stated that

because her parents had provided only one sovereign of gold ring to the

husband, instead of fulfilling the demand of seven sovereigns of gold

jewels, there was physical and mental abuse against the wife by the

husband as well as in-laws. When there is no evidence regarding

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis physical or mental abuse caused to her on the pretext of dowry or Thalai

Deepavali demand, the Court convicting the Accused for the offence

under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are

not found proper. Therefore, the same has to be set aside as perverse.

The learned Judge had failed to appreciate the facts that the ingredient of

Section 498 A of IPC was not attracted in this case. Just because, there

was demand and the demand was not met does not create any

circumstances attracting the ingredients of offence under Section 498 A

r/w. 34 of IPC. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction recorded by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in C.C.No.13/2012 dated

20.04.2015 and confirmed in C.A.No.19/2015, dated 24.08.2015, by the

learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry is also

found perverse. Therefore, the same had to be set aside.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The

Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pondicherry in C.C.No.13/2012 dated 20.04.2015 confirmed

in Appeal by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in

C.A.No.19/2015 dated 24.08.2015 is also set aside as perverse.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The bail bond already executed by the Revision

Petitioners/Accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Pondicherry shall be cancelled. The fine amount already collected from

the Accused is to be refunded to the Accused. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.12.2023 dh Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

To

1. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.

3. The Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Pondicherry.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

dh

11.12.2023

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