Madras High Court
Arputha Selvaraj vs State Represented By on 26 November, 2018
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.149 of 2012
1.Arputha Selvaraj
2.Kanthan @ Esakki
3.Manimekalai ... Petitioners
vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.5 of 2003 ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records from the lower
Courts and to duly set aside the judgment passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District
in her C.A.No.144 of 2011 dated 06.01.2012 confirming the conviction
of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in his
C.C.No.203 of 2004 dated 30.10.2011 by allowing this revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.T.Sasidharan Tamilkani
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This criminal revision case has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.01.2012 passed in C.A.No.144 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and three other accused have demanded dowry and harassed and assaulted the defacto complainant, P.W1. Due to assault the defacto complainant, sustained injury. Therefore, the victim preferred the complaint as against the petitioners and three other accused. After receiving the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case against the petitioners and three other accused. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.203 of 2004. During trial, the charge framed against the petitioners and three other accused under Section 323 IPC was altered into Section 498 (A) IPC.
3.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined, 3 documents were marked. After completing the prosecution, when the incriminating http://www.judis.nic.in 3 evidences culled out from the prosecution and the incriminating circumstances were put before all the petitioners / accused, the same was denied as false. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and one document was marked.
4.After considering all the materials placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, found the petitioners 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also imposed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further found the third petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also imposed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also found the other three accused guilty for the offence under Section 498 (A), against which, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, who in turn, made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.144 of 2011. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the lower Court against A1 to A3 and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower Court against the three other accused. As against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, the petitioners have filed the present revision case.
6.Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.
7.On reading of the entire materials carefully, it is stated that the victim is the wife of A1, the first petitioner herein. First petitioner herein is A1, second petitioner herein is the father of A1 and the third petitioner herein is the second wife of A2. All the persons demanded dowry and also after marriage A1 demanded the victim to hand over all the jewels, failing which, to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for his business. Due to the same, there was wordy quarrel between them. Therefore, the victim / defacto complainant, has lodged a complaint as against A1 and his family members. After investigation, the respondent police have registered the case against http://www.judis.nic.in 5 the petitioners and three more accused A4 to A6 and laid charge sheet and the learned Magistrate after considering the materials placed on record and hearing both side found the petitioners and others guilty and convicted them and sentenced them as mentioned above, against which the petitioners filed the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the lower Court against A1 to A3, petitioners herein and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court against the three other accused, A4 to A6.
8.On reading of the entire records it is seen that the marriage and the relationship are not in dispute and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, found the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) IPC. P.W1 to P.W3 have categorically stated that the complainant has given a complaint regarding the demand of dowry and the same was substantiated before the learned Magistrate while deposing the evidence. The entry in the accident register, which is the first available document and in the statement of the defacto complainant had clearly stated that the petitioners had demanded http://www.judis.nic.in 6 dowry and the victim was assaulted by the known persons. In this case, all the accused are family members of A1, the petitioners herein and husband of the victim and hence, there may not be a dispute with regard to identity of the accused.
9.Under these circumstance, both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and came to a conclusion that the petitioners were found to be guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. Though the learned Magistrate, found the other three accused guilty for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, found that the prosecution has not proved its case against the three other accused and acquitted them. There is no appeal against the said judgment either by the prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the revision Court need not travel beyond the scope of their revision case.
10.On a perusal of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the documents placed before this Court and also the judgment of both the Courts below with the available materials placed by the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution, this http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Court finds that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the petitioners and there is no perversity in the judgment passed by the appellate Court.
11.While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not to sit in the armchair of the appellate Court and revisit and re- appreciate each and every oral and documentary evidence. But in conjoined reading of the materials, this Court has to see as to whether there is any perversity in appreciation of the evidence or mis- interpretation of any provision of law.
12.On reading of the entire evidence placed before this Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or mis-interpretation of any provision of law and that there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in C.A.No.144 of 2011 dated 06.01.2012.
13.In view of the above, this criminal revision case is dismissed and the respondent police is directed to secure the petitioners http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mm immediately to undergo remaining period of sentence. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 26.11.2018
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I,
Tirunelveli.
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.149 of 2012
http://www.judis.nic.in