The court ruled that for a conviction under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution must provide clear, cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment, which was not present in this case.

ORDER :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 21.10.2021, passed in CA.No.19 of 2016, by the Additional District Judge (FTMC), Mayiladudurai, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 13.10.2016, passed in CC.No.137 of 2004, by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi, thereby convicting and sentencing the Revision Petitioner /A1, Ponnazhagu for the offences under Section 4 98A of IPC to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month imprisonment and acquitting him from the offences under Sections 506(ii) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the Prosecution, arisen on the basis of the complaint, Ex.P1, First Information Report, given by the complainant, PW.1, Nagajayam, W/o.Ponnazhagu, against four persons, namely, (1) Ponnazhagu Perumal, (2) Maheswari Kannaiyan, (3) Padmavathy Kanniyan and (4) Kannaiyan Perumal, who were arrayed as A1, A2, A3 and A4, registered in Crime No.12 of 2003 at the All Women Police Station, Sirkazhi, on 08.10.2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A and 506(ii) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is as follows:-

(a) The Revision Petitioner/A1 is the husband of the complainant, PW.1. A2 is the daughter of sister of A1. A3 is the sister of A1 and A4 is the husband of A3. The marriage between PW.1 and the Revision Petitioner, namely, Ponnazhugu was solemnized on 14.07.2002. At the time of marriage, 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cash for purchase of two wheeler and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash were given to the Revision Petitioner.

(b) Within three months from the date of the marriage, dispute arose between them. The Revision Petitioner/A1 used to threaten and torture her to sign in blank papers, by saying that he is going to marry A2, as a second wife. In a Panchayat held on 13.04.2003 convened and presided by the President of Melaiyur Panchayat, the Revision Petitioner/A1 said that he would live with her peacefully. After the Panchayat, they were living peacefully for three months. On 23.09.2003 at 8.00 p.m. in the house of A1, all the accused have threatened her not to interfere with the second marriage of A1 with A2, failing which, they threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. All the accused again demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to perform the marriage of A2, if PW.1 was not willing to give consent for the second marriage.

(c) On 27.09.2003 at 6.00 a.m., the Revision Petitioner again demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the brother of PW.1, Bairavanathan and her elder brother's son, when they came to meet him. Thereafter, again all the accused demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 to continue the matrimonial life with the Revision Petitioner/A1. Since she refused to pay the amount, A2 to A4 started to torture her. PW.1 was driven out of the matrimonial home and she was living in her mother's house.

(d) Hence, for such acts, the Respondent Police, after conducting investigation, had filed a charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 4 98A and 506(ii) of IPC read with 34 and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi.

3. The case was taken on file in CC.No.137 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi. After receipt of summons from the Trial Court, when the accused appeared in person