Crl.A(MD)No.86 of 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :26.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

Crl.A(MD)No.86 of 2014

Thanga Aruna

... Appellant / De facto complainant

Vs.

1.The State Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Alankulam, Tirunelveli District.

2.Jeevanantham

3.Ponnusami Nadar

4.Popathiammal

5.Kasthuri @ Kaniyammal

6.Karuthapandian Nadar

7.Ravikumar

8.Vijayalakshmi

9.Biranthadevi

10.Poosaipandi

... Respondent/ Complainant

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Crl.Appeal No.152 of

2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court II,

Tirunelveli acquitting the accused in CC.No.68 of 2015 on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and allow this appeal.

For Appellant

: Ms.L.Victoria Gowri

For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan,

No.1

Additional Public Prosecutor

For Respondent : Mr.V.Kathirvelu,

Nos.3 to10

Senior Counsel assisted

by Mr.K.Prabhu

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.A(MD)No.86 of 2014

JUDGMENT

This Crimianal Appeal is arising out of a matrimonial

dispute.

2.The appellant / wife of the second respondent Jeevanantham

lodged a complaint against respondents 2 to 10 before the Sub

Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alankulam,

Tirunelveli District in the year 2004 and a case was registered in

Crime No.5 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A)

and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.Pursuant to the investigation in Crime No.5 of 2004, the

first respondent Police filed a final report against respondents 2

to 10 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and the same was taken

on file in C.C.No.68 of 2005. In conclusion of the trial, the trial

Court acquitted the respondents 2 to 8 from the charge under Section

406 IPC and found the respondents guilty for the offence under

Sections 498(A) IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and

convicted and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for

each offence and in default of payment of fine, three months of

simple imprisonment was also ordered. As against the conviction and

sentence imposed by the trial Court, the respondents 2 to 8

preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions and the appeal was

taken on file in C.A.No.152 of 2010 by the Additional Sessions

Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.

4.The appellate Court by its order dated 03.01.2011, set

aside the order of the trial Court and acquitted the respondents 2

to 8 from all the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved over the

same, the de facto complainant has preferred the present appeal

before this Court.

5.When the appeal was taken up for hearing, at the

intervention of this Court and also on the steps taken by the

leanrned Counsel on either side, mediation was taken place and the

parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

6.It is submitted that the appellant suffered mental illness

and also was under the care of Sneka Mind Care Centre, 12 near

Railway Bridge, South Bypass Road, Tirunelveli -5. The second

respondent / husband of the appellant offered to pay a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh) for the future maintanance of the

appellant. However, the mother of the appellant Leela and the

brother Kumaresa Srinivas, who were also present before this Court

have refused to accept the same and instead, they suggested the

amount can be given as donation to the organisation, namely, Sneka

Mind Care Centre, 12 near Railway Bridge, South Bypass Road,

2/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.A(MD)No.86 of 2014

Tirunelveli -5, which has taken care of the appellant for the past

two years. Though i