IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State by The Station House Officer, Puducherry - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1035 of 2014
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Criminal Revision petition - Conviction under Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - [498-A, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act] - The court analyzed the evidence and found the de-facto complainant's testimony to be exaggerated and unbelievable, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offenses under Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act based on the de-facto complainant's allegations of harassment, demand for dowry, and physical assault. The petitioner's defense included denial of the allegations, assertion of a non-consummated marriage, and evidence of the de-facto complainant's subsequent marriage and child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the de-facto complainant's testimony to be exaggerated and unbelievable, and the evidence presented by the petitioner to be credible. The court concluded that the conviction was not sustainable and acquitted the petitioner of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the de-facto complainant's allegations, the petitioner's defense of a non-consummated marriage, and the subsequent marriage and child of the de-facto complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credibility in the de-facto complainant's testimony, the evidence of a non-consummated marriage, and the subsequent marriage and child of the de-facto complainant, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the revision petitioner was acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT
(PRAYER : Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 10.09.2014 made in C.A.No.01 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, which was conforming the judgment dated 27.11.2013 made in C.C.No.200 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and acquit the petitioner by allowing this revision.)
1. The petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.200/2010, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment, by judgment dated 27.11.2013. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.A.No.1 of 2014. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision.
2. The gist of the case is that the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 married the petitioner on 16.06.2010. It was an arranged marriage. After 8 days of marriage, her father passed away and she went to her parents house for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant lived as husband and wife only for a period of 45 days. During that period, she came to know that the petitioner and his mother were addicted to Alcohol and further the petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Vijaya. He used to come home on late hours, due to which, there was constant quarrel. The petitioner used to scold her using filthy languages and demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. The petitioner to sever his relationship with the said Vijaya, he had to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, for which, an agreement/Ex.P3 between the petitioner and the said Vijaya entered. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid and for balance Rs.1.75 lakhs, the petitioner demanded and forced the de-facto complainant to get the money from her mother and thereby, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The marriage gift, Sridhana articles were pledged and sold by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant along with her mother and relatives came and questioned the petitioner for his activities, at that time, the petitioner's mother assaulted them and demanded more money, hence, a complaint lodged before the All Women Police Station, Villianur. The petitioner was summoned by the Police, there a compromise arrived and the petitioner agreed to live with the de-facto complainant and not to assault her. Contrary to the undertaking, the petitioner and his mother continued harassment. On one occasion, the petitioner using a pillow smothered the de-facto complainant, thereby causing asphyxia. They also attempted to pour kerosene and set her on fire. The demand for dowry and additional jewels were made on 12.09.2010 and the petitioner was continuing his relationship with the said Vijaya. Hence, a complaint was lodged on 05.10.2010 to P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R./Ex.P4 and conducted initial investigation. Thereafter, P.W.7-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the concerned Court.
3. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined and Exs.P1 to P4 marked. On the side of the defence, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D4. On conclusion of trial, petitioner's mother acquitted but the petitioner was convicted as stated above.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.1/de-facto complainant is his erstwhile wife. Her mother is P.W.2., P.W.3 is the cousin of P.W.1. P.W.4 is cousin brother of P.W.1, who is an Advocate Clerk. P.W.5 is also the cousin brother of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is the villager. P.W.7 is the investigating officer in this case. P.W.8 is the Su
Credibility of witness testimony and evidence is crucial in determining the outcome of a criminal case.
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....
Consent given by the victim negates the elements of cheating under IPC Section 420 if not induced by false promise.
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that evidence of cruelty and dowry demands, as defined under IPC Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, is sufficient for conviction, and that subsequ....
Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not giving of traditional presents to bride or bridegroom by friends and relatives.
Offence of Cruelty - Conviction affirmed - Scope of revisional jurisdiction this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction of petitioner under section 498(A) of Indian P....
The court affirmed the principle of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that evidence must clearly substantiate claims of domestic abuse and dowry demands.
Demand of dowry – Conviction set aside – Suit restitution of conjugal rights decreed, but the wife/complainant has not complied that decree
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.