Madras High Court
Jayakumar vs State Rep.By Its on 14 September, 2022
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021
Jayakumar ...Petitioner
..vs..
1.State rep.by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (Central),
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District,
Crime No.11 of 2011.
2.Durga Devi ... Respondents
(R2 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 17.12.2021
in Crl.M.P.No.13302 of 2021 in Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021)
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C to
set aside the judgment dated 22.06.2020 in Crl.A.No.388 of 2017 on the
file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Court, Coimbatore
confirming the conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 23.10.2017
made in C.C.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
(Additional Mahila Court) Coimbatore.
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.J.Franklin
for R2
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.388 of 2017 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner by suppressing his earlier marriage with P.W.4 had married one Durga Devi/de facto complainant and also harassed her and hence, she preferred a complaint.
3. The respondent/Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.11 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 495, 498A and 506(i) IPC. After investigation, they filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Coimbatore in C.C.No.9 of 2013. On completion of the trial, the petitioner was found Page No.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 guilty of the following offences:
(i) for the offence under Section 495 IPC, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months;
(ii) for the offence under Section 498A IPC the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months ;
(iii) for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.388 of 2017 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed Page No.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has preferred the present revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during trial P.W.4, who is the wife of the petitioner has clearly deposed that prior to the alleged marriage, she visited the hospital during her pregnancy where P.W.1/de facto complainant was working. She has also given birth to the child in that hospital. Therefore, P.W.1 known about the earlier marriage between the petitioner and P.W.4 and hence, Section 495 IPC would not attract. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4, wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, if the Sessions Court re-appreciate the entire evidence would have given a finding that the prosecution has not substantiated the charges against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first Page No.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 respondent submitted that P.W.1/de facto complainant has given a complaint against the petitioner stating that the revision petitioner made a false promise and suppressing the earlier marriage with P.W.4, married her and they were living together. Subsequently, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 came to know about the marriage of the petitioner with P.W.4 and asked the petitioner about his earlier marriage, thereafter the petitioner harassed her and hence, she preferred a complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8.Admittedly, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.11 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 495, 498A and 506(i) IPC. Page No.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 After investigation they filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Coimbatore in C.C.No.9 of 2013. On completion of the trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the above offences and he was convicted and sentenced as above. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed.
9.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier marriage of the petitioner with P.W.4 was known to P.W.1, P.W.4 used to visit the hospital where P.W.1 was working in which the wife of the petitioner was admitted for delivery. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 it is seen that the defence has failed to put a suggestion before P.W.1 as to whether P.W.4 used to come to the hospital where the P.W.1 was working. However, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated about the offence committed by the revision petitioner. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the prosecution has proved its case with cogent evidence.
10. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, this Court Page No.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and with cogent evidence and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above and the same was rightly re-appreciated and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
11.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
12.On a combined reading of the entire materials and judgments of both the Courts below, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgments of the Courts below.
13. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed Page No.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 and the judgment dated 22.06.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.388 of 2017 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is confirmed.
14.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms To
1. The IV Additional District & Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court) Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (Central), Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2021 14.09.2022 Page No.9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis