Madras High Court
Balu @ Balamurugan vs The State Rep.By on 15 June, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017
Balu @ Balamurugan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Salem Town .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem in C.A.No.77 of 2007 dated 14.02.2017, confirming the sentence
and order of conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem in
C.C.No.1559 of 2004 dated 26.04.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskaran
for M/s.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondent.
2. This case is preferred by the 1st accused in C.C.No.1559 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, who has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A & 406 of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the accused as follows:-
Rank of the Charges Findings Punishment
accused
1st accused U/s. 498 A of IPC Found guilty Convicted and
sentenced to undergo
one year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-; in default
to undergo 3 months
S.I.
U/s. 406 of Found guilty Convicted and
I.P.C sentenced to undergo
one year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-; in default
to undergo 3 months
S.I.
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017
Rank of the Charges Findings Punishment
accused
Section 4 of Found guilty
Convicted and
Dowry sentenced to undergo
Prohibition Act one year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-; in default
to undergo 3 months
S.I.
3. As per the F.I.R, the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein got married on 04.12.2003. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of Gold jewellery and Rs.50,000/- was paid to the 1st accused at the promise that the balance 10 sovereigns would be paid within a period of one year. Now the complaint is that the 1st accused had spent all the money and also sold the jewels given to the defacto complainant during her marriage.
4. Though it is stated that he is the owner of the Mill, he did not go for any work and later it was found that he has no job or work as mentioned and he forced the defacto complainant to involve in prostitution to get money. For the said purpose, the step-mother of the petitioner, his friend Srikanth and his wife Rekha were also joined 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 together to cause cruelty to the defacto complainant by demanding money and forced her to involve in the said prostitution. Final report in this case was also filed for the offence under Sections 406, 498 A & 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Since there was no evidence regarding forcing the defacto complainant for prostitution in the final report, charge under suppression of Moral Traffic Act was dropped.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution Nine (9) witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.9 and three (3) documents were marked as Ex.P1. to Ex.P3.
6. Considering the evidence, the trial Court convicted the husband of the defacto complainant and the step mother of the defacto complainant, who are A1 and A2. As against A3 and A4, the trial Court found that there is no material evidence to convict them and therefore acquitted. The 1st accused alone preferred an appeal and the appeal came to be dismissed with modification that the substantial period of 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 imprisonment to run concurrently by the revision petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage with the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW.1, with the revision petitioner herein was an arranged marriage held on 04.12.2003. The defacto complainant hardly lived with him for four months and due to misunderstanding, she left her matrimonial home during the month of March after 3 months. Thereafter, she had lodged a complaint containing false averments as if there was a demand for dowry and she was put to torture and cruelty and also she was facing life threat. Except self serving statement, there is no other evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 498A or 406 of IPC. The witnesses relied by the prosecution are the relatives of PW.1 and neighbours living near her parents house. Though the PW.2 / the mother of PW.1 had not spoken specifically about the nature of jewels or mode of payment of money alleged to have been given as dowry and in spite of the specific admission that 15 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.50,000/- has been given, ought to have held the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 498 A, or Section 4 of DP Act.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further pointed out that the trial Court on considering PW.4 and PW.6 as independent witnesses has held the petitioner guilty of demanding dowry, whereas, their evidence clearly indicates that they are not aware of what conspired between the defacto complainant and the petitioner after the marriage and what are all deposed before the Court are only hearsay. The petitioner counsel would also submit that admittedly the marriage was arranged through one Leela and Krishnamurthy, PW.1 in her evidence specifically stated that along with the accused 1 to 4, Leela and Krishnakumar came to her seeking bribe and participation in the negotiations. While so, the prosecution ought to have examined Leela and Krishnamurthy, who would have stated that the true facts.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 respondent would submit that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 when read together cogently, prove the demand of dowry and cruelty caused to PW.1, which has forced the defacto complainant to leave the matrimonial house and give a complaint stating that there is threat to her life and she is forced to involve in prostitution. Though allegation of forcing her to prostitute not prove, it does not complete by exonerate from the petitioner herein. The defacto complainant was put to mental and physical cruelty by suppressing the fact that the petitioner is a job less person and man of no moral. The fact that the defacto complainant was able to live with the petitioner herein hardly for 4 months and in that 4 months she has been physically harassed and tortured by the petitioner herein is well proved through evidence. The delay in filing F.I.R., has been properly explained by the defacto complainant herself in the cross examination and therefore, there cannot be any suspicious over the content of the complaint or doubt of embellishment.
10. This Court on perusing the reasonings given by the Courts below finds that both the Courts below have heavily relied upon 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 the evidence of the interested witnesses namely the defacto complainant, her father, mother and neighbours of her house.
11. PW.8 and PW.9, who are supposed to support the prosecution case regarding the allegations that the defacto complainant was forced to prostitution, have turned hostile which goes to show that to justify her withdrawal from the matrimonial home, the defacto complainant has invented such allegations. As far as payment of dowry, PW.3 admits there is no receipt for the purchase of jewels and there is no description of jewels given as dowry. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court had heavily relied upon the witnesses who are interested and failed to note that there is no independent corroborative evidence.
12. No doubt, Conviction can be rendered even based on the sole evidence. Provided, the said evidence is reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. Unfortunately PW.1 evidence lack reliability. The exaggerated embellishment and falsehood without any corroboration from independent witness, leads to hold that the trial Court finding is 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 perverse and incorrect. Therefore, the revision is liable to be allowed.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.77 of 2007 dated 14.02.2017, confirming the sentence and order of conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem in C.C.No.1559 of 2004 dated 26.04.2007 is set aside. The revision petitioner is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. Bail bond if any executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
15.06.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No rpl To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017
2. The Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem.
3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 rpl Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2017 15.06.2022 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis