Advocates:
['K BALAKRISHNAN', '', 'J GOPINATH-MS', 'N K RAMESH', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

P.Senthil

...Appellant

Vs.

The State

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

W-8, All Woman Police Station,

Chennai.

...Respondent

Criminal Appeal Case filed under Sections 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set

aside the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir

Neethimandram, Allikulam Complex, Chennai – 3, in S.C.No.316 of 2018.

For Appellant

: Mr.K.Balakrishnan

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Sugendran,

Additional Public Prosecutor

*******

1/11

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

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

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.

2/11

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

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

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.

3/11

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

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

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.

4/11

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

Crl.A.No.41 of 2020

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 witne