Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
G. Raja & Another - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 857 of 2019
Decided On : 06-09-2022
For the Appellants:S. Karthikeyan, T. Panchatsaram, Advocates. For the Respondent:S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence, nature of injuries, and application of specific sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in cases of domestic violence and dowry demands.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Domestic Violence - IPC 498A, 307, 326, 506(ii) - [Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, IPC 498A, IPC 307, IPC 326, IPC 506(ii)] - The court found the accused guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and modified the conviction under IPC 326 to IPC 325 for the first accused and under IPC 326 r/w 109 IPC to IPC 325 r/w 109 IPC for the second accused. The court also imposed fines and compensation on the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the prosecution of the accused for domestic violence, including physical assault and demands for dowry. The trial court convicted the accused under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and modified the conviction under IPC 326 to IPC 325 for the first accused and under IPC 326 r/w 109 IPC to IPC 325 r/w 109 IPC for the second accused. The court also imposed fines and compensation on the accused.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the prosecution's evidence, the nature of the injuries inflicted, and the appropriate charges and sentences for the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the victim, medical evidence, and corroborating witness statements to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the nature of the injuries and the applicability of specific sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, modifying the convictions under IPC 326, imposing fines and compensation on the accused, and setting terms for payment and consequences of default.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.113 of 2016, dated 28.11.2019 and allow the appeal.)
1. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/Swetha and the first accused got married on 16.05.2010. The second accused is the mother-in- law of P.W.1. After marriage, the first accused was torturing P.W.1, demanding Maruthi Suzuki Swift Car and also to convey the land in his name. The second accused also threatened P.W.1 that she would re-marry his son if the demands are not met. Six months before the complaint, both the accused had physically assaulted and pushed her down and smothered her with a pillow. On 05.04.2015 at about 8.00 P.M., when P.W.1 was at home, the first accused tried to hit her with a hot cooker-utensil found in the kitchen. When P.W.1 was trying run and escape, the second accused prevented caught hold of her and the first accused kicked her on the abdomen and also hit her on the face and she was bleeding in her ear and nose.
2. On the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.263 of 2015 and P.W.12 took up the case for investigation, completed the investigation and filed a final report, proposing that the accused be found guilty for the offences under Sections 498A, 307, 326, 506(ii) of IPC. The same was taken on record in P.R.C.No.55 of 2015 and upon the appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies, the case was committed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The case was thereupon taken on file in S.C.No.113 of 2016 and was made over to the Trial Court.
3. The Trial Court, after considering the materials on record, framed charges for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 326, and 506(ii) of IPC. Upon questioning, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.
4. To bring home the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked. Upon questioning about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
5. The Trial Court, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the accused and by the Judgment dated 28.11.2019, while acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 506(ii) of IPC and for the other offences under Section 498A of IPC and imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.25,000/- and found both the accused guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposed a sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. The first accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and was imposed with Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and the second accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC r/w Section 109 of IPC, and was imposed with Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
6. Heard Mr.S.Karthikeyan for Mr.T.Panchatsaram, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.
7. Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case, except for the sole and uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1, there is no direct evidence on record. P.W.9 and P.W.10 were belatedly included and they are interested witnesses, in any event, did not have direct knowledge about the incident. Even in the 161 statements of some of the witnesses were also not recorded, therefore, the flaw in investigation is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, he would submit that from t
