SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J.
K.Muruganandam – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2012
Decided on : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.Kumar Tacrejaa for M/S C.P.Sasikumar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Adv.

Headnote:

Dowry Prohibition Act - Sec.4 - Cr.P.C - sec. 313 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sec.3(1)(x) – IPC - Sec.498(A), 494 and 506(ii) – Appeal Against conviction - Commit offence of bigamy –Cruelty - Marriage Registration Certificate - Demand of Dowry - Married de facto complainant/PW and their marriage was also registered at Sub Registrar Office - Complainant/PW.1 is a practising lawyer and she is resident - She belongs to Scheduled Caste community - A1 is also a practising Advocate and he is resident - He belongs to Hindu which is a Back Ward Community A2 to A10 belong to same community of A1 - After marriage between A-1 and PW1 A1 did not take de facto complainant to his native place and she was allowed to live at her parent’s house - Out of their wedlock a male child was born to de facto complainant on and he was name giving ceremony of child was celebrated on - Assured that he would take her to his parent’s house after name giving ceremony.

Finding of the Court:

It is equally doubtful whether parents of A-8/A-9 and A-10 had known about first marriage - Had they known about his first marriage they would have hesitated to give A-8 in marriage with A-8 - It is true that A-8 did not make any complaint against A-1 for offence under sec. 495. But with that alone it could not be concluded that A-8 and her parents had knowledge about subsistence of first marriage of A-1 - Because there may be several personal and social factors which could have made it not easy for A-8 for lodging a complaint against A-1 and his family - After coming to know second marriage of A-1 with A-8 PW.1 would have got shocked and disappointed - She would have heard stories about events and details of who had come to second marriage function - With those secondary information and in that emotional state of mind PW1 would have complained against all other accused that they had knowledge about her marriage with A-1 and still abetted him to marry A-8 by showing their presence - But it is duty of Investigation Officer to unearth whether other accused had willingly participated in second marriage function knowing fully well about subsistence of A-1’s first marriage - But materials on record did not show that other accused had knowledge about marriage of A1 with PW.1.

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions if any are also Closed.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused to set aside the judgment of conviction imposed in S.C.No.196/2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 28.03.2012.

2. The Appellants were arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 8 to 10 before the trial Court.

3. The first accused was the husband of Dhamayanthi who is the de facto complainant/PW.1, A2 and A3 are the father and mother of the first accused. The second accused died during the pendency of the trial.

A4 is the younger mother of A1, A5 was the husband of A4. A5 also died during the pendency of the Appeal. A6 is the elder brother of A1. A7 is the relative of A-1 and who got acquitted. A8 is the second wife of A1 and A9, A10 are the parents of A8.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A1 married the de facto complainant/PW.1/Dhamayanthi on 05.04.2001 at Rasipuram and their marriage was also registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Rasipuram on 20.04.2001. The complainant/PW.1 is a practising lawyer and she is the resident of Rasipuram. She belongs to Adi Dravidar Scheduled Caste community. A1 is also a practising Advocate in Ariyaloor and he is the resident of Annimamgalam. He belongs to Hindu Barkava Kula Mooppanar which is a Back Ward Community. A2 to A10 belong to the same community of A1.

4.1. After the marriage between A-1 and PW1, A1 did not take the de facto complainant/PW.1/Dhamayanthi to his native place and she was allowed to live at her parent’s house at Rasipuram. Out of their wedlock a male child was born to the de facto complainant on 29.01.2002 and he was named as Tamilamudhan. The name giving ceremony of the child was celebrated on 03.02.2002. A-1 assured PW.1 that he would take her to his parent’s house after the name giving ceremony.

4.2. One Prema, a friend of PW.1 had also participated in the name giving ceremony and she was also present at PW.1's house and stayed back in the evening. At 7.00 pm when PW.1 asked A-1 to take herself and the child to his parents house, A-1 told her that only if she brought a dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, he could convince his parents and take her to their place. Then he alone went to his parents' house and did not return thereafter.

4.3. On 30.06.2002, PW.1 came to know that A-1 married A8/Parimala and A-2 to A-10 had abetted A-1 to commit the offence of bigamy by marrying A-8. After knowing that, PW.1 went with her advocate friends to Annimanagalam, Ariyalur District, which is the native place of A-1. When she questioned A-1 about the second marriage, she was insulted by A-1, his parents and his brother (A-2, A-3 & A-6). They also threatened her that they would do away her life; they also abused her by calling her caste name. Since the situation was bad, PW.1 came back to her place. After one week, A-1 came to PW.1’s house and abused her again. He told her that if she could bring Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, he would continue to live with her. Subsequently, PW.1 gave the complaint (Ex.P.1).

4.4. The complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram Police Station and he entrusted the complaint to PW.17/Gnanapandithan, for enquiry. On receiving the complaint, PW.17 registered a case in Cr.No.966/2002 of Rasipuram Police Station for the offences under Sec.498(A), 506(ii) IPC and 494 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4.5. PW.17 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence [to the house of PW.1] and prepared observation mahazaar and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.22). He enquired some of the witnesses and thereafter he proceeded to Salem on 27.10.2002 and enquired the witnesses Haribabu, Mayan, and Prema and recorded their statements. After completion of his enquiry at Salem he came to Rasipuram and got the Marriage Registration Certificate of A-1 and PW.1 from the Rasipuram Sub Registra

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top