BAIL SLIP That the Appellants/Accused namely Dhanabakkiyam W/o. Late Kaliyaperumal, Janaki W/o. Dakshinamoorthi, Ranganathan S/o. Late Kaliyaperumal, Parimala W/o. Muruganatham, Rajamanickam S/o. Late Maruthai, Kamala W/o.Rajamanickam was released on bail as per order of this court dated 07.09.2021 made in CRL.M.P.No.8950 of 2021 in CRL.A.No.246 of 2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON 01.12.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 01.02.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2012

1.K.Muruganandam

2.Dhanabakkiyam

3.Janaki

4.Dakshinamoorthi (died)

(Amended as per order in CRL.A.No.246 of 2012 dated 31.01.2022)

5.Ranganathan

6.Parimala

7.Rajamanickam

8.Kamala .. Appellants/

Accused 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10 Vs.

1.State rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram, Rasipuram Police Station, (Cr.No.966/2002) 2.P.Dhamaiyanthi (R2 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 16.04.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012)

.. Respondent/

complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the judgement of sentences and fine imposed in S.C.No.196 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 28.03.2012.

For Appellants : Mr.Kumar Tacrejaa for M/S C.P.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate for R1 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for R2 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/

accused to set aside the judgement of conviction imposed in S.C.No.196/2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 28.03.2012.

2. The Appellants were arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 8 to 10 before the trial Court.

3. The first accused was the husband of Dhamayanthi who is the de facto complainant / PW.1, A2 and A3 are the father and mother of the first accused. The second accused died during the pendency of the trial. A4 is the younger mother of A1, A5 was the husband of A4. A5 also died during the pendency of the Appeal. A6 is the elder brother of A1. A7 is the relative of A-1 and who got acquitted. A8 is the second wife of A1 and A9, A10 are the parents of A8.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A1 married the de facto complainant/PW.1 /Dhamayanthi on 05.04.2001 at Rasipuram and their marriage was also registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Rasipuram on 20.04.2001. The complainant /PW.1 is a practising lawyer and she is the resident of Rasipuram. She belongs to Adi Dravidar Scheduled Caste community. A1 is also a practising Advocate in Ariyaloor and he is the resident of Annimamgalam. He belongs to Hindu Barkava Kula Mooppanar which is a Back Ward Community. A2 to A10 belong to the same community of A1.

4.1. After the marriage between A-1 and PW1, A1 did not take the de facto complainant/PW.1 /Dhamayanthi to his native place and she was allowed to live at her parent’s house at Rasipuram. Out of their wedlock a male child was born to the de facto complainant on 29.01.2002 and he was named as Tamilamudhan. The name giving ceremony of the child was celebrated on 03.02.2002. A-1 assured PW.1 that he would take her to his parent’s house after the name giving ceremony.

4.2. One Prema, a friend of PW.1 had also participated in the name giving ceremony and she was also present at PW.1's house and stayed back in the evening. At 7.00 pm when PW.1 asked A-1 to take herself and the child to his parents house, A- 1 told her that only if she brought a dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, he could convince his parents and take her to their place. Then he alone went to his parents' house and did not return thereafter.

4.3. On 30.06.2002, PW.1 came to know that A-1 married A8/Parimala and A-2 to A-10 had abetted A-1 to commit the offence of bigamy by marrying A-8. After knowing that, PW.1 went with her advocate friends to Annimanagalam, Ariyalur District, which is the native place of A-1. When she questioned A-1 about the second marriage, she was insulted by A-1, his parents and his brother (A-2, A-3 & A-6). They also threatened her that they would do away her life