THE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 18.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.1168 of 2004Tmt.Abirami.. PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Sub-Inspector of Police, W3, All Women Police Station, Kothavalchavadi, Chennai-600001.2.Thiru.M.Saravanan(A1)3.Thiru.V.S.Manickam(A2)4.Tmt.Kotteeswari(A3) .. RespondentsPrayer:- This revision has been preferred against the judgmentdated 8.4.2004 made in C.C.No.6064 of 2002 on the file of theCourt of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-1.For Petitioner :Mr.M.SathyanarayananFor Respondents :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian (for R1) Additional Public ProsecutorMr.N.Ranganathan (for R2 to R4)JUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred against the judgment inC.C.No.6064 of 2002 on the file of the III MetropolitanMagistrate, Chennai. 2.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on8.6.1997 the marrige between the complainant and A1 wassolemnized and at that time the parents of the complainanthave offered 35 soverigns of gold ornaments, other silverarticles and house hold articles as the gift to the groom.According to the complainant the marriage life of thecomplainant with A1 went on smoothly for six months and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter there arose a misunderstanding and that A1 used todemand Rs.20 lakhs as additional dowry from the complainantand her parents. It is the further allegation of thecomplainant that A1 had developed illicit intimacy with oneRingu and he is living separately with her at T-Nagar.3.After taking cognizance of the case, the learned trialjudge had issued summons to the accsued and on theirappearance, had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,and framed charge under Section 498 IPC and when questionedthe accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of theprosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2were marked.4.P.W.1 is the complainant. According to her, A1 is herhusband and A2 is the father of A1 and A3 is the mother of A1and that the marriage between her and A1 was solemnized on8.6.1997 in a marriage hall at Alwarpet and at the time ofmarriage her parents have presented 35 soverigns of goldornaments and other silver articles besides house holdarticles and that they have also presented 5 soverign goldchain to A1 and that she and A1 lived happily at Door No.140,Pavalakara Street, Chennai, for about 5 months. Thereafter A1had developed illicit intimacy with another woman and he usedto come to the house at late hours. According to her, A1began to treat her cruelty and also demanded Rs.20 lakhs andhad driven her out of the matrimonial home by saying thatunless she brings Rs20 lakhs from her parents' house shecannot enter into the house. According to her, she left thematrimonial home in April, 1998. and there was a panchayattook place on 6.7.1998, but it ended in futile. Butsubsequently her husband A1 took her back. But within threedays he began to treat her cruelly demanding Rs.20 lakhs asadditional dowry and once again in September 1998 she wasdriven out of the matrimonial home and thereafter about 3 ½years continuously she was living in her parents' home andthat she preferred a complaint on 10.9.2001 with the ThousandLights Police and also with the All Women Police Station atKothavalchavadi. Thereafter on 20.1.2002 A1 had taken her backand allowed her to reside in their house, but he was stayingwith another woman viz. Ringu at T-Nagar. According to her,she has been informed through telephone by her father-in-lawand sister-in-law that A1 had married the said Ringu and achild was also born to them. She would admit that till14.2.2002 she was residing in the house of A1 and thereaftersince her husband had failed to maintain her, she locked thedoor of the house and went to her parents house and againpreferred another complaint on 14.2.2002 with the All WomanPolice Station at Kothavalchavadi and since the police have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ failed to take action on the complaint dated 14.2.2002, shehas preferred another complaint dated 1.4.2002. In the meantime, her husband A1 had issued divorce notice dated 19.3.2002requesting her to give her consent for consent divorce, whichwas suitablly replied by her. Ex.P.1 is the complaintpreferred by her. 5.P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. He would admit therelationship of the parties. He would further corroboratesthe evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that at the time ofmarriage between P.W.1 and A1 35 soverigns of gold ornaments,silver articles were presented to A1. He would admit thatsince the relationship between P.W.1 and A1 got strained therewas a panchayat took place on 6.7.1998 and thereafter P.W.1used to stay in her husband's house for some time. Accordingto P.W.2, A1 had developed illicit intimacy with a Gujarathigirl viz. Ringu and that he enquried about this with A2 & A3but they have not shown any interest in the matter and thatthere was a panchayat held on 6.7.1998 between A1 an P.W.1.According to him (P.W.2), A1 had demanded Rs.20 lakhs in thepresence of the panchayatdars and after the panchayat A1 hadtaken back P.W.1 along with him, but on 15.9.1998 he haddriven her out of the matrimonial home insisting her to bringRs.20 lakhs. According to him, he was informed that A1 wasresiding with the said Ringu at plot No.148/8 in MillenniumApartments, at North Usman Road, T-Nagar and P.W.1 haspreferred a complaint with Kothavalchavadi Police Station andalso with Thousand Lights Police Station and on 20.1.2002, A1came to his house and took back P.W.1 and they resided at DoorNo.42, Kothavalchavadi Garden Street, Mannadi. But he hadfailed to maintain her and that P.W.1 had preferred anothercomplaint with All Women Police Station, Kothavalchavadi on14.2.2002.6.P.W.3-Shanmugam, is the person who had arranged themarriage between P.W.1 and A.1. He has also corroborated theevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.7.P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. He has alsocorroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. He also speaksabout the mediation took place between P.W.1 and A.1. 8.P.W.5-Murugesan, is an employee under P.W.3-Shanmugam.According to him, A1 had demanded Rs.20 lakhs from P.W.3.9.P.W.6-Thamizharasi, is the then Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Kothavalchavadi Police Station. According to herP.W.1 had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint on 23.5.2002, which wasregistered under Cr.No.387/W3/02. She had examined the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex.P.2 is the FIR.After completing the formalities, she had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 30.7.2002 under Section 498(A)IPC.10.When incriminating circumstances were put to theaccused they denied their complicity with the crime. Theaccused examined on their side D.W.1 to D.W.3. After goingthrough the evidence both oral and documentary, the learnedtrial judge has come to the conclusion that the accused arenot guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and accordingly acquittedthe accused from the charges levelled against them, whichnecessitated the complainant to prefer this revision.11.Now the point for determination in this revision iswhether the judgment of the trial Court is perverse in natureto warrant any interference from this Court?12.The Point:- Even according to the evidence ofP.W.1 & P.W.2, A1 had demanded Rs.20 lakhs as an additionaldowry in the presence of panchayatdars. But no panchayatdarwas examined on the side of the prosecution to show that therewas a demand of Rs.20 lakhs as an additional dowry by A1 fromP.W.1. The only independent witness examined on the side ofthe prosecution was P.W.5, who is an employee under P.W.3. Inthe cross-examination P.W.5 would admit that the accused havedemanded Rs.20 lakhs from P.W.3-Shanmugam. P.W.3 would deposein his evidence that the accused have demanded Rs.20 lakhs tohim in the presence of P.W.5-Murugesan. Further P.W.5 incategorical terms would admit that he does not know for whatpurpose the demand of Rs.20 lakhs was made by the A1. Furtherthere is absolutely no document produced on the side of thecomplainant to show that the complainant's father is in a veryaffluent situation to give Rs.20 lakhs as an additional dowryto A1. According to P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, he is workingas a Production Manager in the Co-optex department. Evenduring marriage admittedly he has given 35 soverigns of goldornaments and some silver articles besides house hold articlesto P.W.1. To show that the accusd are in affluent positionand they are not in need of Rs.20 lakhs, D.W.1 to D.W.3 wereexamined on the side of the accused. According to D.W.1, whois also a retired government servent, the marriage betweenP.W.1 and A1 was conducted by the accused and that even at thetime of marriage there was no demand of dowry made by theaccused and that he knows about the family of the accused fornearly 25 years. He is very firm in his stand that at nopoint of time A1 has subjected P.W.1 to physical or mentalcruelty. D.W.2 & D.W.3 have also deposed to the fact that atno point of time the accused has made any demand of additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dowry to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. Except the interestedtestimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there is no other independentwitness viz, panchayatdars were examined on the side of theprosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Only on thebasis of the available evidence the learned trial judge hascome to the correct conclusion that the accused are not guiltyunder Section 498(A) IPC. I do not find any perverseness inthe findings of the learned trial judge to warrant anyinterference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly.13.In fine, the revision is dismissed confirming thefindings of the learned trial judge in C.C.No.6064 of 2002 onthe file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, GeorgeTown, Chennai-1.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssvTo1.The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2.-do- The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kothavalchavadi, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate Sr 44435+1cc to Mr.M.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate Sr 43836SA (CO)km/27.7.Crl.R.C.No.1168 of 2004