The Inspector Of Police vs Sivakumar @ Vijayarangan @ Babu
2023 Latest Caselaw 7024 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     Date : 26.06.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.A(MD)No.55 of 2017

                     The Inspector of Police
                     All Women Police Station,
                      Trichy Fort,
                     Trichirappalli,
                     Crime No.50/2008                                    ... Appellant/Complainant
                                                                 vs.

                     1. Sivakumar @ Vijayarangan @ Babu,

                     2.Vijayalakshmi

                     3.Chellappa                                         ... Respondents/Accused

                     PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of
                     Cr.P.C., to     set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents /
                     accused Nos.1 to 3, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.5,
                     Trichirappalli, in C.C.No.101 of 2009, dated 21.12.2010, convict the
                     respondents / accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges framed against them.
                                     For Appellant      : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor

                                     For R1 & R2        : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

                                           R3           : Died

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                               Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017




                                                       JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment of

acquittal of the respondents / accused Nos.1 to 3, passed by the Judicial

Magistrate No.5, Trichirappalli, in C.C.No.101 of 2009, dated

21.12.2010 and thereby, convict the respondents herein.

2. The appellant/complainant has filed a complaint in Crime

No.50 of 2008, as against the respondents/accused for the offences under

Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.

101 of 2009.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2003, the

defacto complainant got married with the first accused. During the

marriage, they were presented 30 sovereigns of gold, silver articles and

household articles. Thereafter, the accused persons demanded huge

dowry and also harassed her. Due to the said cruelty, the defacto

complainant was driven out from the matrimonial home. She also filed a

petition to return the jewels and other articles, which were presented

during their marriage. The first accused is working in CRPF at Bhopal,

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

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

Madhya Pradesh. On that complaint, the appellant-police registered an

F.I.R in Crime No.50 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A and 406 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, they filed a final

report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in

C.C.No,101 of 2009.

4. On the side of the appellant, he had examined himself as

P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 2 documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. On the

side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial

Court found the respondents/accused not guilty for the offence under

Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the appellant would submit that the trial Court without considering the

fact that all the accused persons were in possession of all the Sridhana

articles, including jewels. While pending investigation only, they

returned all the jewels and other articles to the defacto complainant.

Therefore, it would clearly prove the charges under Section 406 I.P.C. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

Admittedly, the first accused lived with the defacto complainant only for

15 days and thereafter, due to huge demand of dowry and cruelty, she

was driven out from the matrimonial home. The defacto complainant

was examined herself as P.W1 and she categorically deposed about the

harassment of the accused persons and also duly corroborated by P.W.2.

Even then, the trial Court failed to appreciate the case of the prosecution

and mechanically acquitted the accused.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

8. A perusal of the records revealed that after the marriage,

the first accused and the defacto complainant were lived together only for

15 days. The allegation itself is that the first accused failed to look after

the defacto complainant. That apart, due to mental cruelty, the first

accused was living separately. He filed a divorce petition as against the

defacto complainant on the ground of cruelty. On receipt of summons,

the defacto complainant lodged the complaint. She categorically

admitted the above fact and is also corroborated by the Investigation

Officer, who was examined as P.W.11. Further, on the complaint, the

Social Welfare Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and it concluded that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

there was no dowry demand and no harassment was made by the accused

persons. Whatever the jewels and household articles presented during

their marriage, were taken by the defacto complainant, while pending

investigation. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 I.P.C is not made

out, as against the accused.

9. Insofar as the Section 498-A I.P.C is concerned, they lived

together only for 15 days and no complaint was lodged by the defacto

complainant, till the receipt of summons from the divorce case filed by

the first accused. The Social Welfare Officer also conducted enquiry and

concluded that there was no dowry harassment and no cruelty was

committed by the accused persons. Therefore, the offence under Section

498-A I.P.C is also not made out against the accused.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit

that the third accused in this case, died on 28.07.2014 and he has also

filed a Death Certificate to that effect.

11. Recording the submission made by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, the charges against the third respondent

herein – A3 are abated.

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

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

12. Hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused

and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the

Court below. This Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly, it is dismissed.

26.06.2023

NCC : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Ls

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Trichirappalli,

2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort, Trichirappalli,

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

Ls

Crl.A.(MD)No.55 of 2017

26.06.2023

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