BAIL SLIPThe v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
Accordingly the revision is partly allowedsetting aside the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed asagainst A2 and she is set at liberty
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 173, 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 s. 4
- CriminalLaw (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ss. 105, 113(B), 113A, 134
- Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The points for consideration are as to: (i) Whether in the absence of any evidencesatisfying the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, both the courtsbelow found the accused guilty? and (ii) Whether the judgment of both…
- Para 1313. The instant case is not one where any suchillegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in theconduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in…
- Para 1515. In such a case, as per the decision of the Hon'ble ApexCourt reported in 2008 (15) Scale 371 (Rajendran and another vs. State Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order), thepresumption under Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, whichis primarily meant for…
Judgment
BAIL SLIPThe Petitioners/Accused are directed to be released on bail bythe order of this Court dated 21.12.06 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1267of 2006 in Crl.R.C.225/06.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.07.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACRL.RC.No.225 of 2006andCrl.M.P.No.1267 of 20061. Rafi Hussain2. Badiunnisa.. Petitioners /Petitioners(A1 & A2)vs. The State rep.by the Sub Inspector of PoliceW-1 All Women Police StationThousand LightsChennai 600 006... Respondent/Respondent/ComplainantCriminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,against the judgment dated 18.01.2006 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2005 confirming the conviction andsentence dated 16.05.2005 passed by the learned Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.10123 of 2000.For petitioners : Mr.A.Raghunathan, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.N.C.KaushikFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E RAnimadverting upon the judgment dated 18.01.2006 passed by thelearned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track CourtNo.V), Chennai in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2005 confirming theconviction and sentence dated 16.05.2005 passed by the learnedChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.10123 of2000, this criminal revision petition is focused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The whole kit and caboodle of facts, as revealed from therecords could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) The police laid police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C as against A1 and A2 for theoffences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Inasmuch as the accusedpleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (ii) During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1to P.W.10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the defence side, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked and nooral evidence was adduced. Ultimately, the trial courtrecorded the conviction and imposed the followingsentences against A1 and A2:-------------------------------------------------------------------OffenceSentence Imposed/Fine-------------------------------------------------------------------(i) 498-A IPCSimple imprisonment for 2 years and a fineRs.5,000/- each (in default to undergo3 months simple imprisonmentby each)(ii) Section 4 of Simple imprisonment for 2 years and a Dowry Prohibition fine Rs.5,000/- each (in default to Act undergo3 months simple imprisonment by each)-------------------------------------------------------------------(iii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgmentof the trial court, appeal was filed by A1 and A2 for nothing butto be dismissed confirming the judgment of the lower court.
Challenging and impugning, the judgments of both thecourts below, this revision is filed on various grounds, the warpand woof of them would run thus:a) Both the courts below presumed as though theaccused were guilty and wrongly arrived at theconclusion. Absolutely, there is no iota or shred, shardor miniscule, molecule or dot of evidence to indicatethat there had been any demand by A1 and A2 for dowryand that in furtherance of such demand, they harassedPW1. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 do not satisfy theingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of anycorroborative evidence or clinching evidence, thetestimony of PW1 should not have been believed forgospel truth by both the courts below.b) The appellate court without analysing theevidence simply confirmed the conviction and thesentence, imposed by the trial court.
Heard both sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The points for consideration are as to: (i) Whether in the absence of any evidencesatisfying the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, both the courtsbelow found the accused guilty? and (ii) Whether the judgment of both the courts belowwere perverse due to non application of law inanalysing the evidence placed before it?6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners wouldinvite the attention of this court to various portions of theevidence and advance his argument to the effect that the evidenceof PW1 is imaginary in nature and she has simply passed allegationsas against her husband A1 and the mother-in-law, A2; as against A2,there is no positive allegation even, made by PW1 and in such acase, both the courts below were not justified in mulcting her withcriminal liability under Section 498-A and Section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act; the brother of PW1 was not examined so as toprove and demonstrate that he sold his cable TV business and raisedmoney and accordingly gave it to PW1 for being paid to her husband; the ordinary family troubles as narrated by PW1 in her depositionshould not have been taken as sufficient evidence by both thecourts below for convicting the accused for those serious offences.
Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, wouldsubmit that absolutely, there is no ground for interfering with thereasoned order passed by both the courts below and he prayed forthe dismissal of the revision petition.
At the first instance, I would like to consider the caseas against A2, the mother-in-law of PW1.
I could see considerable force in the submission made bythe learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A2 that even in thedeposition of PW1, there is no positive assertion on her part thather mother-in-law demanded dowry and in connection with that sheharassed her or that she behaved in such a horrendous or horriblemanner so as to create an impression in the mind of PW1 that herlife would be jeopardised or she would be put to grave injury, etc.
At this juncture, I would like to extract here under thefollowing decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 2814 (Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra)."2. Before, however, adverting to the factual score, it is to be noticed at this juncture that Section 498-Ahas been engrafted on to the statute book by way of aseparate Chapter in terms of the provisions of CriminalLaw (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above amendment stands incorporated by reason of presenttrend in the society and to meet the requirement of thesociety, the legislature thought it fit to incorporate anew Chapter being Chapter XXA in the statute bookconsisting of Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code. Forconvenience sake, Section 498-A is set out herein below:-498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty -Whoever, being the husband orthe relative of the husband of woman, subjects such womanto cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a termwhich may extend to three years and shall also be liableto fine.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section,"Cruelty" means -a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature asis likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to causegrave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whethermental or physical) of the woman; orb) harassment of the woman where such harrasment iswith a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuablesecurity or is on account of failure by her or any personrelated to her to meet such demand.3. The basis purport of the statutory provision isto avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing aspecific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticedherein before. Two specific instances have been takennote of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word"cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: Whereasexplanation (a) involves three specific situations, viz.,(i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to causegrave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, bothmental and physical, and thus involving a physical tortureor atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence ofphysical injury but the legislature thought it fit toinclude only coercive harassment, which obviously as thelegislative intent expressed is equally heinous to matchthe physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other oneis latent but equally serious in terms of the provisionsof the statute since the same would also embrace theattributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section 498-A".A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Courtalong with the penal provision extracted supra, would clearlydemonstrate and display, exemplify and convey that to constitute anoffence under Section 498-A, the cruelty could be proved eitherunder sub clause (a) or sub clause (b) or both. But, in thiscase, the nature of the accusation as against the accused made byP.W.1 is such that it neither falls within the ambit of sub clause https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) nor sub clause (b) of the explanation appended to Section 498-AIPC.
It has to be seen as to whether as against A2, there isany serious allegation made by PW1. The learned counsel for therevision petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to thefollowing excerpts from her deposition: 15 ehl; fs; jhd; jpUkzk; Koj;J ehd; ey; ygoahf ,Ue;njd;@ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////@vd; ehj; jdhh; V 3 jkPdhtpd; tPl;oy; ele;j g';c&d; nghJeh;d ghpkhwpa nghJ vd; id ghpkhw vLj;J brd;w ghj; jpuj; ij vd; khkpahh; jl; otpl; lhh;@/ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////@vd; Kd;ghfnt vd; khkpahh; vd; fzthplk; vd; idmtUf;F gpof; ftpy; iy vd; Wk; ntW jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs; Sk; goa[k; brhy; thh;/@......................@vd; khkpahh; vd; dplk; eP vd;d cj; jkpah vd;W brhy; yp.ehd; epidj; jhy; ,g;gt[k; cd;d tPl;il Juj;j Koa[k; vd; Wk;. mth; brhy; ngr; irjhd; vd; fzth; nfl; ghh; vd; Wk; brhd; dhh;@///////////////////////////////@mJ khjphp re; jh;g;gj; jpy; vd; khkpahh; mth; jiyia vd; jiy kPJ ,of;f tUthh;@/////////////////////////////@mJtiuf; Fk; ehd; vd; mk; khtplnkh. mg; ghtplnkh. ntWahhplnkh vd; fzth; tPl;oy; ele;j epfH;r;rpfs; gw; wp brhy; ytpy; iy/@ ////////////////////////////////////@mjw;F vd; khkpahh; mth; fs; kfs; bfhLj;j rhg; ghl; iltpuak; bra; jjhf brhy; yp m';nfna jfuhW bra; jhh;@As such, a plain reading of those excerpts would, by no stretch ofimagination, would enable this court to view that A2 had therequisite mens rea, so to say, criminal intention to demand dowryfrom PW1 and that in furtherance of enforcing her illegal demandshe conducted herself in such a cruel manner so as to cause gravemental or physical injury to PW1. In this case, the question ofPW1 having been driven to commit suicide does not arise at all. Both the courts below in my opinion, have not analysed the evidenceon record as per law. They simply took it for granted that A2 alsoalong with A1 indulged in dowry demand and also in causing someharassment to her so as to cause grave mental and physical tortureto her.
At this juncture, I would like to refer to the followingdecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh aliasB.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)and another. An excerpt from it would run thus: "
The instant case is not one where any suchillegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in theconduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the HighCourt should not reappreciate the evidence to reach afinding different from the trial court. In the absence ofmanifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage ofjustice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such casesis not warranted.
We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Courtwas not justified in interfering with the order of acquittalin exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instanceof the informant. It may be that the High Court onappreciation of the evidence on record may reach aconclusion different from that of the trial court. But thatby itself is no justification for exercise of revisionaljurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of CriminalProcedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot saythat the judgment of the trial court in the instant case wasperverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. Therewas also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence norwas there any defect of procedure or illegality in theconduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. "(ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – SathyajitBanerjee and Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerptfrom it would run thus: "22.
The cases cited by the learned counsel show thesettled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, atthe instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the HighCourt finds defect of procedure or manifest error of lawresulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. "A bare perusal them would reveal that the revisional court isnormally not expected to analyse once again the evidence and arriveat a different conclusion from the one arrived at by both thecourts below concerning finding of fact. However, the revisionalcourt can interfere, if both the courts below without applying theproper law or perverse in appreciating the evidence decided thelis. 13. My discussion supra would exemplify and evince that asagainst A2, her pin pricks on the daughter-in-law, was construed ascruelty. No doubt, the conduct of an elderly lady like A2 inpassing remarks due to her foul-mouthed attitude as against thelady like PW1, would cause mental torture and inconvenience.
Eventhen, the question arises as to whether such conduct on the part ofthe A2 is grave enough to attract Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The extracted version of PW1 supra wouldonly exemplify and evince that the conduct of A2 was only of an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unadjustable mother-in-law and not a cruel mother-in-law ascontemplated within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The distinction between anunadjustable mother-in-law and a cruel mother-in-law is not onethat of tweedle dum and tweedle dee, but realistic and there is achasm between the two. I am of the opinion that the convictionrecorded and the sentence imposed by the trial court as confirmedby the Appellate Court as against A2 should be set aside, inasmuchas the ratiocination adhered to by both the courts below wereperverse and it emanated due to non-applying of the correctprovision of law in appreciating the evidence in the facts andcircumstances of this case. 14. Relating to the prosecution case as against A1, PW1 invarious portions of her depositions clearly and categoricallypointed out that he was after money as well and he also demandeddowry. It is axiomatic and obvious that such harassment was madeby A1 within 7 years from the date of marriage.
In such a case, as per the decision of the Hon'ble ApexCourt reported in 2008 (15) Scale 371 (Rajendran and another vs. State Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order), thepresumption under Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, whichis primarily meant for proving the offences under Section 304-Balso could be ushered in, in proving the offences under Section498-A of IPC. Accordingly, if viewed, it could taken that in thismatter, the testimony of PW1, the wife and her father PW2 alonewould be sufficient. Certain excerpts from the said decisionwould run thus: "8. Consequences of cruelty which are likely todrive a woman to commit suicide or to cause graveinjury or danger to life, limb or health, whethermental or physical of the woman are required to beestablished in order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498 A.Substantive Section 498 A IPC and presumptive Section113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short"Evidence Act') have been inserted in the respectivestatutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983.It is to be noted that Section 304 B and 498 A, IPCcannot be held to be mutually inclusive.
Theseprovisions deal with two distinct offences. It is truethat cruelty is a common essential to both the Sectionsand that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section498A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304 Bthere is no such explanation about the meaning of"cruelty". But having regard to common background tothese offences it has to be taken that the meaning of"cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed inthe Explanation to Section 498A under which "cruelty"by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304 Bit is "dowry death" that is punishable ad such death https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A personcharged and acquitted under Section 304 B can beconvicted under Section 498 A without that charge beingthere, if such a case is made out. If the case isestablished, there can be a conviction under both thesections.
(See Akula Ravinder and others vs. The Stateof Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPCand Section 113 B of the Evidence Act include in theiramplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operationof Section 113 B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicidewithin a period of seven years from the date ofmarriage.9. The above position was highlighted in BalwantSingh and others vs. State of H.P. (2008(10)JT 589).10. Section 498A IPC has two limbs. The firstlimb of Section 498 A provides that whoever, being thehusband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such a woman to cruelty shall be punished. "Cruelty" has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any wilful conductwhich is of such a nature as is likely to drive to awoman to commit suicide. When there is demand ofdowry, the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A. Clause (a) of the Explanation has definite application to the facts ofthe present case.
Additionally, effect of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be lost sight of.11. Further as per Section 113 A of the EvidenceAct when the question as to whether commission ofsuicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband orany relative of her husband and it is shown that shehad committed suicide within a period of seven yearsfrom the date of her marriage and that her husband orsuch relative of her husband had subjected her tocruelty, the court may presume that such suicide hadbeen abetted by her husband or by such relative of herhusband. This has not been rebutted by theappellants. "
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners wouldsubmit that the brother of PW1 was not examined so as to prove thealleged fact that he sold his cable TV business and raised money tothe tune of Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of gratifying the demand ofA1. In my opinion, had the brother of PW1 examined, certainly, hewould have been faced with the same criticism that he happened tobe the brother of PW1. Wherefore, the question of examining PW1'sbrother before the trial court does not arise. As per Section 134of the Indian Evidence Act it is not the number of witnesses thatmatters but the quality of evidence that should be taken note of. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In matters of this nature, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catenaof decisions laid down the law that the court could place relianceon the evidence of near and dear relatives, inasmuch as strangersto the family concerned would not be able to speak about theoccurrence happened within the four walls of a house and furthermore even the neighbours and friends will be reluctant to comeforward to speak about the family affairs.
Absolutely, there is nodefence found exemplified during cross examination of theprosecution witnesses. When I posed this question to the learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner, he would in all fairness wouldinvite the attention of this court to the excerpts during thecross examination of PW1 and it is extracted here under for readyreference.@ vd; khkpahh; tPl;oy; vd; id ve;j tpjkhd Jd;g[Wj;jYk;bra; atpy; iy vd;W brhy; tJk;. Eh;d khkpahh; tPl;oypUe;j nghJ ve;j ntiya[k; bra; atpy; iyvd;W brhy; tJk;. Gpur; rpidf;F ehd; jhd; fhuzk; vd;W brhy; tJk;. Rhpay;y/ ehd; vd; fztUf;F bra;a ntz; oa flikfis kidtp vd;w Kiwapy; bra; atpy; iy vd; Wbrhy; tJk;. Vd; Fhe; ijia rhptu ghh;j;Jf; bfhs; stpy; iy vd;W brhy; tJk;. Vy;yhtw; wpw; Fk;vd; bgw; nwhhpd; cjtpia ehondd; vd;W brhy; tJk;. Vg;nghJk; vd; bgw; nwhh; fs; vd; Dld; ,Uf;f ntz; Lk; vd;W bra; njd; vd; why; rhpay;y////////////////////////////////////////////////////////vd; mz; zd; Kjy; vjphpia moj;J tpl; ljhy; v';fis btspapy; ngha; jPh;j;Jf; bfhs; sbrhd; dhh; fs; vd; why; rhpay;y@//////////////////////////////////////////ehd; gpshf; bkapy; bra; tjw; fhf bgha; ahf g[fhh; bfhLj;njd; vd; Wbrhy; tJk; rhpay;y@As such a bare perusal of them would reveal and expatiate that itis the case of A1 that PW1 was not a dutiful wife, and that she wasnot adjustable.
There is not even any occurrence of grave incidentsuggested during cross of PW1, indicating that she was cruel inher attitude towards the husband. It is also found suggested toher that she tried to black mail the husband and his familymembers. Absolutely, there is nothing to highlight, as to what typeof black mail she indulged in as against A1 and his family members.17. I am fully aware of the legal proposition that incriminal cases, the accused is not expected to take any specificdefence and the accused is also not expected to examine himself asa witness.
My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the maxim NemoTenetur Seipsum Accusare - No one can be compelled to criminatehimself and the accused can keep mum without disclosing anything. However, the court should not lose sight off the significance of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. A bare perusal of thecatena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, coupledwith Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act would clearly conveyand project that, in certain matters, when certain factors arewithin the knowledge of the accused and if there is no suchdisclosure then, that can certainly be looked askance at also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
This is a case emerged out of matrimonial rift occurredin the life of PW1 and A1 and in such a case, A1 should have comeforward with some specific case of his own as to what was theactual dispute, which made PW1 and A1 to live apart from eachother. Absolutely, there is no iota or shred, miniscule ormolecule of explanation available. In such a case, cogent andconvincing evidence of PW1 cannot be brushed aside or thrown awayby looking askance at it. PW1 also clearly deposed as to how A1demanded dowry over and above, what was given to him on variousoccasions and that he even while she was with him after undergoingcaesarean operation, he beat her, which also caused injury to herin the area of operation, etc.
Hence, I could see absolutely no perversity orimpropriety on the part of both the courts below in finding A1guilty of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it warrants no interference.
However, relating to the sentence portion is concerned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make anextempore submission that the sentence of two years each imposedunder Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, isharsh.
I am of the considered opinion that since the nature ofthe injuries inflicted on PW1 by A1, were not so horrible ormacabre, gruesome or horrendous awarding of two yearsimprisonment is disproportionate to the crime committed by A1 andit could be reduced to 6 months.
It is also a fact that under Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act, sentence less than 6 months imprisonment shouldnot normally be awarded. Hence, I am of the view that both under Section 498-A IPC as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the sentence of six months imprisonment each could be awarded andthat would meet the ends of justice and both the sentences areordered to run concurrently.
Operative part
Regarding the fine portion of the sentence, it is leftin tact as against A1. Accordingly the revision is partly allowedsetting aside the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed asagainst A2 and she is set at liberty. As against A1, convictionrecorded by the trial court and as confirmed by the Appellate Courtfor the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of DowryProhibition Act is confirmed and the sentence of 2 years eachimposed under those two penal provisions is reduced to 6 monthssimple imprisonment each and both are ordered to run concurrently. The fine imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by theappellate court is allowed to be in tact. A copy of this ordershall be sent to the lower Court, which is expected to issuewarrant for securing the presence of A1 for sending him to jailto undergo the punishment, if not he has already undergone. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarvj2To1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai 2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4. The Sub Inspector of Police, W-1, All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights, chennai1 cc To Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Advocate, SR.27546Crl.R.C.No.225 of 2006BV(CO)SRA(23/7/2009)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the revision is partly allowedsetting aside the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed asagainst A2 and she is set at liberty
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 173, 397, 401; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4; CriminalLaw (Second Amendment) Act, 1983; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ss. 105, 113(B), 113A, 134; Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 01 Jul 2009. The bench was G RAJASURIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.