The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific details and corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

ORDER :

G. Chandrasekharan, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment of the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl. A. No. 278 of 2016 confirming the judgment of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai in C.C. No. 5679 of 2007.

2. The respondent police filed a final report against the first petitioner under Sections 494, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against the petitioners 2 and 3 under Sections 494 r/w. 109, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner had taken place on 12.01.1990 and thereafter the petitioners subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty demanding 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and thatched house, in which the defacto complainant was living. That apart second and third petitioners in collusion with the first petitioner performed second marriage to the first petitioner with another woman. All the three petitioners harassed the defacto complainant causing her physical and mental cruelty. They also criminally intimidated the defacto complainant to finish the family, if the dowry is not given.

3. On the appearance of the petitioners/accused, they were furnished with the copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding that there are materials available to frame charges against the first petitioner under Sections 494, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against the petitioners 2 and 3 under Sections 494 read with 109, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned trial Judge framed the charges accordingly and the accused were questioned about the charges framed against them. The petitioners denied the charges framed against them and demanded trial. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 witnesses and marked Exs. P1 to P8. No evidence was produced on the side of the accused.

4. It is seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that marriage between the first petitioner and PW. 1 Shanthi, the defacto complainant had taken place on 12.01.1990 and it was a love marriage against the wishes of their parents. After the marriage, the second and third petitioners scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and fought with her for marrying the first petitioner, who is from different caste from the caste of the defacto complainant. Then they took the first petitioner along with them with a threat that he would not be given any property for the reason that he had married the defacto complainant, who was from different caste. The defacto complainant went to their house and demanded that her husband should be sent along with her. The petitioners joined together and scolded her. The first petitioner informed her that he would not come to live with her unless she brought atleast 5 sovereigns of gold jewels from her sister and also house, in which she was residing, should be transferred in her name. Other petitioners had also joined the first petitioner in this demand. If she failed to bring jewellery and the property, she was informed by the second petitioner that he would conduct second marriage to first petitioner. He would also demolish her house, if she objected to the second marriage. Subsequently, the first petitioner was again married one Malathi. Petitioners and Malathi were living as a joint family. First petitioner was visiting PW. 1 periodically and she gave birth to a female child in 1997 and another female child in 1999. After seven years, she did not know the whereabouts of the first petitioner and his second wife. She found them after much effort at Alandur. When she informed the first petitioner that she was struggling with her daughters even for having a square meal, she was beaten by the first petitioner and second wife. Therefore, she gave a complaint to the police and that is E