Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 771
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Ramalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Sudalaiyandi & Others – Respondent
Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 530 of 2005
Decided on: 10-02-2015
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:K. Prabhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R4, No Appearance, R5, S. Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.side).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible testimonies, support from independent witnesses, and substantiation of allegations in cases of domestic violence and dowry demands.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Domestic Violence - Indian Penal Code Sections 498(A), 323, 506(2) - The court discussed the testimonies of the witnesses, the medical evidence, and the allegations of demand of dowry and criminal intimidation. It highlighted the lack of support from independent witnesses, the lack of substantiation of dowry and intimidation allegations, and the pending private complaint for second marriage. The court found that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused by awarding the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, a defacto complainant, filed for revision against the order of acquittal by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. She alleged harassment, assault, and demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the testimonies of the witnesses did not inspire confidence, the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and the allegations of dowry and intimidation were not substantiated. It also noted the pending private complaint for second marriage and concluded that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of testimonies, support from independent witnesses, substantiation of dowry and intimidation allegations, and the pending private complaint for second marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of support from independent witnesses, lack of substantiation of dowry and intimidation allegations, and the pending private complaint for second marriage, leading to the awarding of the benefit of doubt and acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The Revision was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused.
1. P.W.1/defacto complainant is the revision petitioner and aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 19.05.2005 made in C.C.No.139 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, she has filed this revision.
2. According to the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant, the first respondent is her husband and the second respondent is the brother of the first respondent and the third respondent is her mother-in-law and the fourth respondent is the sister of the first respondent. The marriage between her and the first respondent was solemnised about 14 years prior to 2003 and out of wedlock, three children were born. The first respondent herein was employed as a Cashier in a private Bank and both of them were residing at Apparsamy Kovil Street at Thiruvottriyur. The revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant would further allege that the first respondent has developed intimacy with one Alagurani and on account of the same, started harassing and humiliating her and further demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and on the protest of demanding balance of 15 sovereigns of jewels, which were promised to be given, all the private respondents had attacked her at about 15.00 hours on 02.05.2003 and caused injuries and also driven her out of the matrimonial home. P.Ws.3 and 4 said to have witnessed the occurrence.
3. The revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant has informed the said fact of assault to her brother, namely P.W.2 through telephonically and thereafter, she has lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 at about 06.30 p.m., on 02.05.2003 to P.W.8. P.W.9, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced investigation and in the presence of P.W.5, has prepared the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P.2 and also prepared the rough sketch marked as Ex.P.5. The petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant was sent on medical memo and P.W.7 doctor, who was on duty, has examined her and found that she sustained a lacerated injury measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left forearm and opined that it was a simple injury and issued Ex.P.3-wound certificate. P.W.9, after examining witnesses and collecting documents, has filed the final report charging the respondents 1 to 4/accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and it was taken on file in C.C.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.
4. The respondents 1 to 4/accused had summoned and charges were framed and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and prayed for trial of the case.
5. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, had examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5.
6. The respondents 1 to 4/accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false.
7. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/accused, the first respondent herein/first accused was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked.
8. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has acquitted all the accused, vide order dated 19.05.2005 and challenging the legality of the same, P.W.1/defacto complainant has filed this revision.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant would contend that though the independent witnesses, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 had turned hostile, the sole testimony of the injured witness, namely P.W.1-the petitioner herein has established the case of the prosecution and it is also supported by medical evidence in the form of Ex.P.3-the wound certificate issued by P.W.7 as to the assault on 02.05.2003. Insofar as the criminal intimidation and demand of dowry is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that through the testimony of P.W.1 and her brother, who was examined as P.W.2, inti
