O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.37 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498(A) and 494 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

2. After investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur. After completing formalities and after framing charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No. 20 of 2014 for the offence under Section 498-A, 494 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. In order to substantiate the charge, on the side of prosecution, during trial, 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.s 1 to 7 and 4 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4. The learned Judicial Magistrate after conclusion of trial, had found the 1st Petitioner/A1 guilty for the offence under Sec.498(A) I.P.C. and 494 I.P.C., 2nd petitioner/A2 was not found guilty for offence under Sec.494 I.P.C. and found guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 3rd petitioner/A3 was not found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and found guilty only for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. The 1st petitioner/A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A and 494 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. The 2nd petitioner/A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 3rd petitioner/A3 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, all the accused filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has taken the appeal on file in Crl. A.No. 1 of 2017 and made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri for disposal in accordance with law.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments and also on perusal of the grounds of appeal, as a fact finding court had dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court. Neither on the side of prosecution nor the victim had filed any appeal against acquittal. Challenging the said judgment of appellate court, all the accused have filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the appellate court failed to re-appreciate the case of defence that the P.W.1 separated from the 1st petitioner on her own and in her cross-examination, she admits that she has no intention to live with the 1st petitioner. Further, the appellate court failed to consider the evidence of PW.2 and PW.2 in her cross- examination stated that her daughter P.W.1 did not give her willingness to live with the 3rd petitioner. However, the 1st petitioner and P.W.1 were living separately from the year 2007. Further, there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint with regard to the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty and the alleged complaint was filed only in the year 2013 and there is no explanation given for the delay in filing the complaint, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. The 1st and 3rd petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. only based on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the 1st petitioner got married with the 3r