IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Rajivgandhi S/o Ramalingam, Pampoondi Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Inspector of Police AWPS Tindivanam, Villupuram District ...Respondent(s)

(Crime No.13 of 2017)

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to Set aside the Judgment dated 16.10.2023 in Crl.A.83/2023 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Court Tindivanam, thereby Confirming the conviction of the petitioner by Judgment dated 08.08.2023 in CC.176/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I Tindivanam.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M/s T. Saikrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The revision has been filed challenging the judgment of the conviction and sentence dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam in C.C.No.176 of 2018 as confirmed in the judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam in Crl.A.No.83 of 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant that he along with the other accused had committed cruelty on the defacto complainant; that the 2^nd accused, the mother of the petitioner had told the defacto complainant that she would get her son, namely, the petitioner married to another person; and that the petitioner had married the 3^rd accused and thereafter, all the three accused had humiliated her and attacked her and thus committed the aforesaid offence under Sections 498 A, 352, 494 and 506 (i) IPC.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The petitioner neither marked any document nor examined any witness. The trial court after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused 2 and 3 of all the offences and acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Sections 352, 494, 501(i) IPC; and convicted him for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine. The Appellate Court confirmed the said conviction and sentence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below having acquitted all the other accused of the offences and the petitioner for all other offences except under Section 498 A IPC ought to have seen; that there is no allegation in the complaint or in the evidence to show that the petitioner had committed cruelty in connection with any dowry demand or cruelty of such a nature which would drive the woman to commit suicide; and that the only reason for holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 498 A IPC is that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with the 3^rd accused and subsequently married her.

5. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 448, in support of the submission that even assuming that the petitioner had an illicit relationship that itself would not amount to cruelty.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent would submit that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and that the evidence of the victim would show that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner.

7. It is seen that the trial Court had acquitted the second and third accused of all the offences. The petitioner was acquitted of all the offences except for the offence under Section 498 A IPC. Though there is a vague allegation that since the petitioner had an illicit relationship with the 3^rd accused and when questioned by the victim, the petitioner along with the other accused had attacked the victim, there is no evidence to substantiate the same.

8. It is seen that the trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498 A IPC on the basis of Ex.P6, which is the birth cer