Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 2226
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Tmt. Abirami
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others
Crl.R.C.No.1168 of 2004
Decided On : 18-07-2007
For the Petitioner:M. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2 to R4, N. Ranganathan, Advocate.
The importance of independent witnesses and substantial evidence in establishing guilt under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Law - IPC Section 498(A) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting the lack of independent witnesses and documentary evidence to prove the demand for additional dowry. The court emphasized the importance of independent witnesses and the need for substantial evidence to establish guilt under Section 498(A) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that her husband demanded additional dowry and developed illicit intimacy with another woman, leading to cruelty and driving her out of the matrimonial home. The trial judge acquitted the accused, prompting the complainant to file a revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence, such as independent witnesses and documentary proof, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 498(A) IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the judgment of the trial court was perverse and warranted interference from the higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of independent witnesses and substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498(A) IPC. It highlighted the lack of independent witnesses and documentary evidence in the present case, leading to the confirmation of the trial court's findings.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, confirming the findings of the trial court and acquitting the accused in the case.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.6064 of 2002 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 6. 1997 the marrige between the complainant and A1 was solemnized and at that time the parents of the complainant have offered 35 soverigns of gold ornaments, other silver articles and house hold articles as the gift to the groom. According to the complainant the marriage life of the complainant with A1 went on smoothly for six months and thereafter there arose a misunderstanding and that A1 used to demand Rs.20 lakhs as additional dowry from the complainant and her parents. It is the further allegation of the complainant that A1 had developed illicit intimacy with one Ringu and he is living separately with her at T-Nagar.
3. After taking cognizance of the case, the learned trial judge had issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, had furnished copies under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C., and framed charge under Section 498 IPC and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were marked.
4. P.W.1 is the complainant. According to her, A1 is her husband and A2 is the father of A1 and A3 is the mother of A1 and that the marriage between her and A1 was solemnized on 6. 1997 in a marriage hall at Alwarpet and at the time of marriage her parents have presented 35 soverigns of gold ornaments and other silver articles besides house hold articles and that they have also presented 5 soverign gold chain to A1 and that she and A1 lived happily at Door No.140, Pavalakara Street, Chennai, for about 5 months. Thereafter A1 had developed illicit intimacy with another woman and he used to come to the house at late hours. According to her, A1 began to treat her cruelty and also demanded Rs.20 lakhs and had driven her out of the matrimonial home by saying that unless she brings Rs20 lakhs from her parents house she cannot enter into the house. According to her, she left the matrimonial home in April, 1998. and there was a panchayat took place on 7. 1998, but it ended in futile. But subsequently her husband A1 took her back. But within three days he began to treat her cruelly demanding Rs.20 lakhs as additional dowry and once again in September 1998 she was driven out of the matrimonial home and thereafter about 3 ½ years continuously she was living in her parents home and that she preferred a complaint on 9. 2001 with the Thousand Lights Police and also with the All Women Police Station at Kothavalchavadi. Thereafter on 20.1.2002 A1 had taken her back and allowed her to reside in their house, but he was staying with another woman viz. Ringu at T-Nagar. According to her, she has been informed through telephone by her father-in-law and sister-in-law that A1 had married the said Ringu and a child was also born to them. She would admit that till 12. 2002 she was residing in the house of A1 and thereafter since her husband had failed to maintain her, she locked the door of the house and went to her parents house and again preferred another complaint on 12. 2002 with the All Woman Police Station at Kothavalchavadi and since the police have failed to take action on the complaint dated 12. 2002, she has preferred another complaint dated 4. 2002. In the mean time, her husband A1 had issued divorce notice dated 13. 2002 requesting her to give her consent for consent divorce, which was suitably replied by her. Ex.P.1 is the complaint preferred by her.
5. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. He would admit the relationship of the parties. He would further corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that at the time of marriage between P.W.1 and A1 35 soverigns of gold ornaments, silver articles were presented to A1. He would admit that since the relationship between P.W.1 and A1 got strained there was a panchayat took place on 7. 1998 and thereafter P.W.1 used to stay
