JUDGMENT

The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3, in S.C.No.316 of 2018.

2 The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2017 against the appellant and five others for the offence under Sections 495, 498A and 313 r/w 109 IPC against the appellant/A1, 495 r/w 109 IPC, 498A and 313 r/w 109 IPC against A2 to A5 and 495 r/w 109 IPC, 498A and 313 IPC against A6. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2018. Since the offence charged against the accused are triable only by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, who has taken the case on file in S.C.No.316 of 2018 and made over the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex, Chennai, for disposal.

3 Before the trial Court, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the defence no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

4 The learned trial Judge, after trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 16.12.2019, acquitted all the accused and convicted the first accused/appellant only for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

5 Aggrieved over the finding and the judgment of conviction, the first accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

6 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant/A1 is husband of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and A2 to A6 are in-laws of the defacto complainant. There are two incidents alleged to have taken place and the first incident is that the appellant alleged to have dashed the head of the defacto complainant against the wall and caused injuries, which is not proved by the prosecution by producing any medical certificate. The second incident is that the accused 2 to 6, being the in-laws alleged to have committed cruelty against the defacto complainant and the appellant herein stood as a mute spectator. It is to be noted that when A2 to A6 were acquitted of the charge under Section 498A IPC by the trial Court, convicting the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 498A is not justified in law. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as far as the accused 2 to 6 are concerned for the offence under Section 498A IPC, but, relying on the same set of evidence convicted the appellant alone for the offence under Section 498A,which is against law.

6.1 The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 is defacto complainant and other witnesses P.W.2 to 6 are relative of P.W.1 and they are interested and hear say witnesses, which cannot be relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A. The trial Court failed to note that the defacto complainant has not lodged the complaint soon after the occurrence i.e. the alleged incident took place on 19.04.2017, but, the complaint was lodged only on 21.05.2017. The judgment of the trial Court would speak about the co-dependency attitude of the appellant, which is nothing but natural in a joint family and in a joint family every one depends on others and this is nature of joint family and this has been found fault by the trial Court as a crime. The trial Court has also discussed about the inconvenience faced by P.W.1 in the joint family because of the inability of the appellant to raise upto the occasion and to prevent other accused from committing cruelty against the defacto complainant, which cannot be construed as crue