SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72949

MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.LATHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY ITS – Respondent
CRL A 158/2019



Advocates:
['M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', '', 'V SRIMATHI', 'V LAKSHMINARAYANAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'S S MEENAKUMARY', 'S SARAVANAN', 'R', 'M/S D BALACHANDRAN']

Crl.A.No.158 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.No.158 of 2019

M.Latha

...Appellant

-Vs-

1.The State,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.16 of 2005)

2.Ramasamy

3.Kokila

... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, to set aside the order in Crl.A.No.60 of 2017, on the file of the III

Additional District Judge, Virudhachalam, dated 16.07.2018 in reversing the

well considered order in C.C.No.209 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, dated 23.06.2017.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Saikrishna

for Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondents

For R1

: Mr.A.Gopinath

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R2 & 3 : Mr.D.Balachandran

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.158 of 2019

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.A.No.60

of 2017, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Virudhachalam, dated

16.07.2018 thereby reversing the order in C.C.No.209 of 2007, on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam, dated 23.06.2017.

2. This Appeal has been directed as against the order passed in

C.A.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,

Virudhachalam, thereby reversing the offence made in C.C.No.209 of 2017 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam, thereby convicted the

respondents two and three herein.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim and the son of the

respondents two and three herein got married on 10.09.2004 and at the time of

their marriage, her husband was presented with totally 21 sovereigns of golden

jewels, a two wheeler and other household articles. The marriage expenditure

was also borne out by the appellant and her parents. Even prior to their

marriage, her husband was taking treatment at Government Hospital,

Tambaram, since he was suffering from HIV positive. The above said fact was

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.158 of 2019

known to the accused persons and by suppressing the same, they his arranged

marriage with the appellant. After the marriage, the victim lived with her

husband along with the respondents two and three herein. Thereafter, for his

treatment, the victim also paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Because of their

relationship, the victim also tested HIV positive and she had taken treatment at

Cuddalore. Further, her husband was also affected by Tuberculosis. On

11.05.2005, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Tambaram and he died

on 12.05.2005 due to HIV. Hence the complaint.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in

Crime No.13 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 417, 148, 420 and 498(A)

IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report

and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court as against these

accused persons for the charges under Section 498(A) and 417 IPC

5. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW8 were examined as

witnesses and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked as exhibits and on the side of the

defence, no one was examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked as exhibits.

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.158 of 2019

6. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the

respondents guilty for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and sentenced them

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further, found them guilty

for the other offences under Sections 498(A), 417 and 418 IPC. Aggrieved by

the same, the respondents two and three preferred an appeal and the same was

allowed and the finding of the trial Court was reversed. Aggrieved by the same,

the victim filed this appeal.

7. The learned counsel f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top