Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
A. Saranya - Appellant
Versus
State Rep by, Inspector of Police, Villupuram & Others - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 595 of 2015
Decided On : 10-06-2022
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Appeal - Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of I.P.C, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the allegations of dowry harassment and ill-treatment, the demand for money for establishing a business, and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Appellate Court reversed the trial Court judgment based on lack of corroboration of the oral evidence and absence of proof for fundamental facts on demand and payment of dowry.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a defacto complainant, alleged dowry harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the Appellate Court acquitted them based on lack of corroboration of the oral evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court reversed the trial Court judgment and acquitted the accused, citing lack of corroboration of the oral evidence and absence of proof for fundamental facts on demand and payment of dowry.
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence to prove dowry harassment and the demand for money for establishing a business, and the corroboration of the oral evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Court held that lack of corroboration of the oral evidence and absence of proof for fundamental facts on demand and payment of dowry led to the reversal of the trial Court judgment.
Final Decision: The judgment in Crl.A.No.49 of 2012 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam is confirmed, and the Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2015 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.49 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in C.C.No.35 of 2011, Judicial Magistrate, Gingee and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated on 26.08.2014.)
1. The appellant is the defacto complainant. She being aggrieved by an order of acquittal by the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the conviction passed by the Trial Court is before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant/A.Saranya got married to the 2nd respondent/K.Vasudevan on 29.04.2007. The marital relationship was cordial only for the initial three months and thereafter, it went into to rough phase. Meanwhile, the defacto complainant got conceived. A female child was born to her on 07.08.2008. After the child birth, her husband did not come to see her. Later the defacto complainant pursuant to the effect of the counselling by the Legal Service Authority, Villupuram, joined her husband along with her girl child. But, she was not treated properly by her husband and in-laws. She and her child were made to stay in the cattle shed. She, therefore, left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, a complaint dated 25.09.2010 to the District Superintendent of Police was sent by the defacto complainant regarding dowry harassment and ill treatment.
3. In her complaint, she has stated that a year back she gave a complaint in All Women Police Station and based on that complaint, enquiry was conducted and counselling was given to her and her husband. Pursuant to that, her husband after forcible getting an undertaking from her, took her back to the matrimonial home. There she was ill-treated by her husband and in-laws. She and her daughter were forced to stay in the cattle shed and her life was under threat. She was not able to live with her husband and left the matrimonial home.
4. This complaint was forwarded to the All Women Police Station, Gingee. A case was registered in crime No.8 of 2010 under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of I.P.C against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law. After investigation, final report was filed and charges were framed for offence under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses and marked two exhibits.
6. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence placed on behalf of the prosecution held, the prosecution has proved the charges under Section 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In so far as, the other charges framed against him under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of I.P.C has as not proved. All the four accused were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default one week Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C and similar sentenced for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was imposed and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused persons preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.49 of 2012 and same was heard by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge. Before the Appellate Court, P.W.1 was summoned and examined further. The petition filed by the 1st accused seeking restitution of conjugal right and the order allowing the petition were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 respectively.
8. On appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court reversed the trial Court judgment and acquitted the accused. While reversing the trial Court judgment, the Appellate Court has pointed out the following four incidents as the basis of the prosecution:-
1. She has lived happily for 2 months after marriage. After that whatever the work done by her was found fault with by the family members of the accused and they scolded her.
2. After the birth of the child information was given to the accused through phone and the phone was disconnected by sayi
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroboration of oral evidence and the need for proof of fundamental facts in cases of dowry harassment.
The importance of clear and corroborative evidence, consistency, and coherence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC.
In cases under Section 498A IPC, strict proof of marriage is not required; evidence of harassment and dowry demand is sufficient.
The absence of clear evidence establishing guilt is essential for upholding acquittals in domestic violence cases.
The presumption of innocence in acquittals is reinforced, and revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
The judgment reaffirms the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal appeals and underscores the requirement for clear and compelling evidence to overturn a judgment of acquittal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
