Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 3114
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
Somasundaram & Others - Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.850 of 2000
Decided On : 17 November 2006
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy and corroborated evidence in cases involving alleged criminal offences, such as bigamy.
Headnote:
Section 494 - Bigamy - IPC - [Section 494, Section 109 IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint against the petitioners for an alleged offence under Section 494 r/w. Section 109 IPC, relating to a second marriage while the first marriage was subsisting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the sole eyewitness to the alleged second marriage was not trustworthy and highly doubtful, and there was no corroboration of the witness's evidence by other prosecution witnesses. The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the lack of corroboration by other witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliable nature of the eyewitness testimony and the lack of corroboration, leading to the petitioners being acquitted of the charges.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charges.
(Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 7.9.2000 made in C.A.No.41/1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum CJM, Cuddalore.)
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 7.9.2000 made in C.A.No.41/1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum CJM, Cuddalore convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 494 read with section 109 IPC and sentencing the first petitioner to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/=, sentencing imprisonment of the petitioners 2 to 4 till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1000/=.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) The complainant/respondent herein filed a private complaint against the first petitioner and 4 others for an alleged offence under Section 494 r/w. Section 109 IPC stating that she got married to the petitioner on 6.5.1990 and that later she was harassed with demands of dowry and was driven away to her parents house and that later on 17.9.1995 the first petitioner got married to the second petitioner for a second time in the Shivan Temple in Nallur Village and that the persons arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 8 in her complaint also participated in the said marriage and aided and abetted the same. The third petitioner is the father of the second petitioner and the 4th petitioner is the father of the first petitioner.
(b) The private complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.719 of 1995 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vridhachalam. On behalf of the complainant P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 3 were marked. On behalf of the accused D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same.
(c) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vridhachalam, on a consideration of the evidence let in both oral and documentary by the parties and also the submissions of the respective counsels, found guilty of the accused under Section 494 and 494 r/w.109 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/=. Aggrieved over the same, the accused preferred appeal in C.A.No:41 of 1999 before the leaned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. The Additional Sessions Judge after detailed enquiry and hearing the arguments of both sides acquitted accused 4 to 8 and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the first accused. However, he modified the sentence of accused 2 to 4 and imposed sentence till the rising of the court and fine of Rs.1000/=. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused 1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that P.W.2 is the sole eye witness to the alleged second marriage. But in his cross examination he deposed that he does not even know P.W.1. P.W.2 says that A.1 came and invited him for the marriage. The deposition of P.W.2 would show that his evidence is quite unnatural and suffers with improbabilities, because there is necessity for A.1 to invite P.W.2. Ex.D.2 falsifies the evidence of P.W.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the courts below have erroneously convicted the accused when there is no corroboration of P.W-2's evidence who is a chance witness, instead given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.
4. There is no representation for the respondent/complainant. In spite of notice, the respondent did not either appeared in person or engaged a counsel. Therefore, this court appointed Mr. C.R. Malarvanna as Amicus Curiae by order dated 24.3.2006. As he was also not appearing by order dated, 25.8.2006, this Court appointed Mr. R. Rajan as Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the respondent. But on the date of hearing of
