K.Uma Rani v. 1. S.Ashok2. T.D.Anitha3. S.Vasanta Bai4. M.Padmavathi5. D.Amarendra6. Inspector of Police W2, All

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 27-04-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANCrl.R.C.No. 1477 of 2004K.Uma Rani ... Petitioner/P.W.1 -vs-1. S.Ashok2. T.D.Anitha3. S.Vasanta Bai4. M.Padmavathi5. D.Amarendra6. Inspector of Police W2, All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai . 20. ... Respondents/Accused 1 to 5 and Complainant Criminal Revision filed against the Judgment, dated 12.03.2004 madein S.C.No.302 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTCNo.4, Chennai.For petitioner : Mr.G.JawaharlalFor respondents : Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran for RR1, 3 and 4 Mr.V.S.Sivapandian for RR2 and 5 Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThis Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal,dated 12.03.2004, made in S.C.No.302 of 2003 on the file of the AdditionalSessions Judge / FTC No. 4, Chennai. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 are the accused before the trial court,facing charges under Sections 307, 323 and 506 (II) IPC. On the complaintgiven by the petitioner herein, who was the defacto complainant / P.W.1,the 6th respondent herein registered the case against the respondents 1 to5. It is seen from the impugned judgment that P.Ws.1 to 10 were examinedbefore the trial court, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.4.3. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentaryevidence and also the arguments advanced by both sides, held that thecharges leveled against the respondents 1 to 5 have not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted them from the charges. Againstwhich, the petitioner herein has filed this criminal revision.4. According to Mr. G.Jawaharlal, learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, the trial court has not considered the evidence ofthe prosecution witnesses properly, and the version of P.W.1 iscorroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, the younger daughter of P.W.1.According to the learned counsel, the findings of the court below isagainst the evidence available on record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that in a revision againstacquittal, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding,leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with thefinding of the court below.6. Charges have been framed against the respondents 1 to 4 underSections 307, 323 and 506 (II) IPC and against the 5th respondent underSection 506 (II) IPC.7. It is not in dispute that the first respondent / A1 is the husbandof the revision petitioner. The second respondent, Anitha was a student ofthe revision petitioner. Her brother is the 5th respondent. The thirdrespondent is the mother of the first respondent and mother-in-law of therevision petitioner. That on 01.12.1979, the marriage between the revisionpetitioner and the first respondent was solemnized. According to therevision petitioner, she being a senior lecturer in a polytechnic, went toCanada to attend some training programme on 21.03.2001 and returned on24.05.2001. Soon after, she returned from Canada, her second daughterinformed her that the first respondent had married the second respondent,while she was in Canada. Admittedly, this case was not tried for theoffence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Therefore, the Court has to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consider the evidence with reference to the charges framed against theaccused under Sections 307, 323 and 506 (II) IPC.8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 drew theattention of this Court to the FIR, marked as Ex.P.4, wherein the date ofthe occurrence of the offence is stated as 27.04.2001, date of receivingthe information is 02.07.2002 at 2 p.m. On the complaint given by therevision petitioner on 02.07.2002, the case was registered. The revisionpetitioner, who was examined as P.W.1 has deposed in her evidence that on11.01.2001 at about 6.30 p.m, when she came out of the house, she foundher husband coming in a Maruti Car. When she went nearby the car, thesecond respondent / A2 spitted on her, getting down from the car, beatedthe revision petitioner and on hearing her noise, her husband the firstrespondent by drowing the car attempted to hit her, but she escaped withminor injuries. According to her, she went inside the house and informedthe same to her father-in-law and junior mother-in-law, but her father-in-law attempted to attack her by a chair. The aforesaid evidence wasdisbelieved by the trial court. 9. Considering the contradictory version and the delay in lodging thecomplaint, for the alleged offence that had taken place on 11.10.2001,there is no other evidence, except the oral version of the petitioner.There is no acceptable reason from the revision petitioner, for lodging acomplaint on 02.07.2002, after a period of 9 months.10. In the cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that the ageof her father-in-law was about 80 years and few months after theoccurrence, he died and that he was a diabetic patient and also havingheart ailment, for which he was taking treatment in the hospital. She hasadmitted in her cross-examination that the age of A3 was 67 years. She hasadmitted that she arrayed her father-in-law also as one of the accused.Further, she has admitted that she was staying in the very same house,even after the alleged occurrence and she did not say anything about theoccurrence even to her sisters. According to the revision petitioner, on21.04.2002, when she was in the house, her husband, the first respondentscolded her and fisted on her face by hand and also beaten on her back. 11. Even as per the evidence of the revision petitioner, theallegation against the second respondent and A5 was with reference to theoccurrence, that had taken place on 11.10.2001, but the complaint, Ex.P.1was given and the case was registered only on 02.07.2002, 9 months afterthe occurrence, without any acceptable reason for the inordinate delay.She has further admitted that she continued to be in the same house, evenafter 21.04.2002 along with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.Therefore, there is no allegation against the respondents 2 and 5 on thealleged occurrence that took place on 27.04.2002. P.W.2, Sathyamithra,daughter of the revision petitioner and the first respondent was areporter of a magazine, working at Bangalore. According to her, herfather, the first respondent herein was beating the revision petitioner,her mother in April 2002, but as per the FIR, there was no alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence in April 2002. According to P.W.3, Hasmitha, another daughterof the petitioner and the first respondent, on 21.04.2002, her father, thefirst respondent had beaten her mother, but she did not see the occurrencedirectly, hence her hearsay evidence was inadmissible, as per the IndianEvidence Act.12. P.W.8, the doctor had deposed that on 22.04.2002, at about 01.05p.m, he examined the revision petitioner and issued a copy of the accidentregister, Ex.P.3. According to him, he found some abrasion on the face ofthe revision petitioner, which would have been caused, while she wasattacked by hand or even due to the scratch of her bangle.13. It is not in dispute that the respondents 1 to 5 were prosecutedonly for the charges punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 506 (II) IPC.As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents / accused, thereis no specific overt act against the respondent 2 and 5 for theoccurrence, said to have been taken place on 21.04.2002. Even, the allegedoccurrence that had taken place on 11.10.2001, though the revisionpetitioner was residing along with A1, A3 and other family members, nocomplaint was lodged before the police, for about 9 months, for whichthere is no acceptable reason from the revision petitioner.14. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, impleadingthe respondents 2 and 5 in this case would show that the case was filedwith an ulterior motive of harassing the respondents 2 and 5. As found bythe court below, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are selfcontradictory. It is not sufficient to prove the guilt against the accusedbeyond reasonable doubt.15. Had there been a threat to the life of the revision petitioner,as alleged by her, there could be no possibility for her, residingcontinuously in the same house along with the first respondent, A3 andother family members. Though the petitioner has admitted that the age ofher father-in-law was about 80 years and he was a diabetic patient,suffering from heart ailment, she would state that he attempted to attackher by a chair. As held by the trial court, the evidence of P.W.1 is selfcontradictory and the same cannot be accepted, to base the conviction onthe respondents 1 to 5 / accused. 16. I could find no manifest error of law or perverse finding,leading to miscarriage of justice, so as to interfere with thefinding of the court below, in the criminal revision preferred againstacquittal. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I amof the considered view that there is no error or illegality in thejudgment of acquittal recorded by the court below and accordingly thecriminal revision fails. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. In the result, confirming the judgment of acquittal rendered bythe court below, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.tsvnSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.4, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police W2, All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai . 20.3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai. +1 cc to Mr.G.Jawaharlal, Advocate Sr.No.29375.NG(CO)dcp/15.6.07 Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2004