Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1264 of 2010 & Crl.M.P. No. 1 of 2011 & Crl.A. No. 192 of 2012
Decided On : 08-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel, L. Mahendran, S. Karthikeyan, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the conviction under Section 498(A) IPC, highlighting the court's consideration of evidence, promises made by the accused, and the resulting mental and physical harm to the complainant.

Headnote:
498(A) - Criminal Appeal - Section 397, Section 401 - [IPC 498(A), IPC 406, IPC 354, Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act] - The court discussed the charges under Section 498(A) IPC, Section 406 IPC, and Section 354 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The lower appellate Court acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 406, 354 IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. The court analyzed the evidence and materials available and confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498(A) IPC by the trial Court. The court also modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved charges against the accused under Section 498(A) IPC, Section 406 IPC, and Section 354 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The complainant, who was the defacto complainant, filed a complaint stating that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the accused, including demands for dowry and an ambassador car. The marriage between the complainant and the accused took place with promises of sending the complainant to the US to join her husband, but the accused failed to fulfill these promises, leading to mental and physical harm to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of subjecting the complainant to cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The court also modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. The court, however, acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 406, 354 IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the fulfillment of promises made by the accused to send the complainant to the US to join her husband, the demands for dowry and an ambassador car, and the subsequent mental and physical harm caused to the complainant due to the accused's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the evidence and materials available, including private letters between the complainant and the accused, which revealed the promises made by the accused and the mental and physical harm caused to the complainant. The court also considered the conduct of the accused, including the failure to fulfill promises and the resulting trauma experienced by the complainant.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 498(A) IPC and modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. The court also acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 406, 354 IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1264 of 2010: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem in C.A.No.111 of 2010 on 26.11.2010, modifying the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem in C.C.No.98 of 2010 dated 22.06.2010, confirming the conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and sentencing him to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI and setting aside the other charges under Section 406 IPC and Section 354 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Crl.A.No.192 of 2012 of 2010: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused [A1 and A2] in sofar as the charges under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 498(A), 406 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act are concerned, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem in C.C.No.98 of 2010, dated 22.06.2020.)

Common Judgment

1. The complainant/state preferred Crl.A.No.192 of 2012 against the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.98 of 2010 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, dated 22.06.2010.

2. A1 preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.1264 of 2010 against the conviction and sentence confirmed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem in C.A.No.111 of 2010 on 26.11.2010, modifying the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem in C.C.No.98 of 2020 dated 22.06.2010, confirming the conviction under Section 498A IPC and sentencing the petitioner/A1 to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. The trial Court found A1 guilty for offence under Section 498(A), 406, 354 of IPC r/w 3 & 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 354 r/w 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Against which A1 preferred appeal before the lower Appellate Court/the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.111 of 2010. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 26.11.2010, modified the judgment of trial Court by acquitting A1 from offence under Section 406, 354 IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, against which the petitioner/A1 preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.1264 of 2010 before this Court.

4. The trial Court found A1 not guilty for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and A2 to A4 for offence under Sections 498(A), 406 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and acquitted them from the above charges. Against which the appeal was preferred by the State in C.A.No.192 of 2012.

5. Since the issues involved in both cases are outcome of a common judgment, both the cases are taken up together for final disposal. For the sake of clarity, the accused are referred, according to their ranks, as mentioned in the charge.

6.(i)The case of the prosecution is that there are totally five accused. A5 is the husband of PW1. A1 and A2 are the parents of A5 and A3 and A4 are the sister and brother-in-law of A5. The marriage between Sangeetha/PW1 and Rajavel/5th accused took place on 04.04.2002. The case against the 5th accused Rajavel got split up since NBW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document