Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
Tamizhmani S/o. Chinnathambi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marital dynamics and dowry demand (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on dowry demand's relevance (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. trial court's findings on evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 25) |
| 4. clarification on cruelty under ipc (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final judgment and acquittal (Para 30 , 31) |
J U D G M E N T
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgement dated 23.03.2022 made in S.C.No.218 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.
2. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused Tamizhmani and the deceased Santhi Devi was performed on 22.04.2010. At the time of marriage the accused had demanded 25 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry. However only five sovereigns of gold jewels along with materials and other ornaments were given at the time of marriage. Immediately after the marriage, the accused had stayed in the in-laws house itself. The accused had the ha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
