Madras High Court
Vasantha @ Santhiya vs State Rep By on 9 August, 2024
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2015
---
Vasantha @ Santhiya .. Appellant
Versus
1. State Rep by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Bhavani,
Erode & District
(Crime No.11 of 2011)
2. Rangasamy
3. Ramasamy
4. Irusayee
5. Sampoornam @ Chinnaponnu
6. Kaliyappan
7. Sengodammal .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C against the judgment
dated 14.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, Erode District and set aside the same by
allowing the present Appeal and convict the Respondents 2 to 7 in accordance
with law.
For Appellant .. Mr. M. Karthik
for Mr. I.C. Vasudevan
For Respondent-1 .. Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents 2 to 5 .. Mr. A. Thiyagarajan
For Respondents 6 & 7 .. Mr. P. Jagadeeswaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm )
1/24
Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The Appellant is the De facto Complainant at whose instance, Prosecution came to be launched against the Accused 1 to 6/Respondents 2 to 7 herein for having allegedly committed the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 494 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code. After trial in the criminal proceeding, by judgment dated 14.10.2014 made in C.C.No.18 of 2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, Erode District acquitted the Accused 1 to 6 from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant is the Complainant. As per the complaint, during the year 1995, she was given in marriage to the first Accused. After marriage, the De facto Complainant lived along with the first Accused/husband, second Accused/father-in-law, third Accused/mother-in-law. After six months of marriage, it was stated that the De facto Complainant was subjected to matrimonial cruelty in various forms and manifestations and she was also asked to bring another 10 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry. According to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 2/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 the De facto Complainant, demanding 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, she was driven out to her parents house by the Accused 1 to 3. Subsequently, after Panchayat by the elders, the Appellant/De facto Complainant was sent back to the matrimonial home. It was stated that thereafter, the Appellant/ De facto Complainant lived peacefully for three years in the matrimonial house. Out of the wedlock between the Appellant/De facto Complainant and the first Accused, a female child was born. However, three years after the birth of the child, the Appellant/De facto Complainant was once again driven to her parents house on the ground that the Appellant/De facto Complainant did not beget a male child. Thereafter, the first Accused alone met the Appellant/De facto Complainant in her parents house once in a week and she was also subsequently brought back to the matrimonial home for some time and also made to stay in her parents house for sometime. According to the Appellant/De facto Complainant, the first Accused/husband did not see her in her parents house and when she caused an enquiry with one Palanisamy, Son of Maniyagounder, it was stated that the first Accused had contracted a second marriage and living with Sampoorna @ Chinnaponnu, daughter of Kaliyappan of Athimara Thottam Village. When the Appellant/De facto Complainant questioned the second marriage of the first Accused with the Accused 1 to 3, they threatened the Appellant/De facto Complainant with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 3/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 Therefore, the Appellant/De facto Complainant had given a complaint under Ex.P-1 to the All Women Police Station, Erode, based on which, the case in Crime No. 11 of 2011 was registered on 12.11.2011. Ex.P-3 is the First Information Report.
2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-3, First Information Report, P.W-10, Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses Kandasamy, Iyyanperumal-P.W-8 and in their presence, drew a rough sketch under Ex.P-4 and observation mahazar under Ex.P-2. He also recorded the statement of Vasantha @ Chandra, Sevi Gounder, Erulayee, Palanisamy, Manthi Gounder and Govindasamy and recorded their statement. P.W-10 also came to know that the Accused in this case have obtained anticipatory bail and therefore, he did not arrest them. After conclusion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet on 27.11.2011 against the Accused 1 to 6 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494 B read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
2.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, had taken the case on file and issued summons to the Accused 1 to 6. On their appearance, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 4/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution have been furnished to them under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, charges were framed against the Accused 1 to 6. The Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered. During trial, Prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-10 and marked 4 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-4.
2.4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani noticed that the Appellant/P.W-1 had stated in the complaint under Ex.P-1 that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the Accused 1 to 3 demanding dowry, however, when she was examined as P.W-1, in her chief examination, she had stated that after six months of marriage, demanding dowry, she was driven out of the matrimonial home. On the other hand, P.W-2 mother of P.W-1 had stated that for about two years from the date of marriage, her daughter happily enjoyed the matrimonial life with the first Accused. Further, P.W-2 in her statement had not stated that what was the quantum of cash or jewels demanded by the Accused 1 to 3. It was also pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani that the second Accused is none other than the own brother of P.W-2 and the first Accused is the son of her brother. As regards the second marriage https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 5/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 alleged to have been contracted by the first Accused, during the subsistence of marriage with the Appellant/De facto Complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani pointed out that the so-called second marriage was not established either by oral evidence or through documentary evidence. Therefore, by the judgment dated 14.10.2014 made in C.C.No.18 of 2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, Erode District acquitted the Accused 1 to 6 from all the charges.
2.5. Challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2014 in C.C. No. 18 of 2012, the State had not come up with any appeal. The present Appeal is filed by the De facto Complainant, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2014.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint under Ex.P-1, given by P.W-1 and submitted that there are sufficient materials available in the deposition of the P.W-1 to P.W-10 to establish the charges levelled against them. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate in Paragraph Nos.8 to 36 of the judgment misdirected himself and arrived at a wrong conclusion that Prosecution had not proved the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 6/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the discussion in page No.13 till 22 of the judgment and submitted that the manner in which the evidence tendered by the Prosecution Witnesses had been analysed by the learned Trial Judge is perverse and therefore, the judgment has to be set aside.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that P.W-1 to P.W-3 clearly deposed about the harassment to which P.W-1 was subjected to in the matrimonial home at the behest of the Accused 1 to 3. Further, the Appellant was driven out of the matrimonial home demanding dowry and it is clearly spoken to by P.W-1 to P.W-3. However, the Trial Court rejected the evidence of P.W-2/father of P.W-1 on the ground that he is only a hearsay witness and discarded his deposition. The deposition of P.W-2 is admissible under Section 6 of The Evidence Act, but it was not properly analysed by the Trial Court. It is further stated that P.W-4 had clearly spoken about the second marriage between the first Accused and one Sampoorna @ Chinnaponnu, daughter of Kaliyappan of Athimara Thottam Village, but it was erroneously discarded by the trial Court. The learned Counsel for the Appellant therefore submitted that a clear case has been made out as against the Accused 1 to 6, but the Trial Court discarded the material evidence and acquitted the Accused 1 to 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant therefore https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 7/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 prayed for setting aside the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani and to allow this Appeal.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first Respondent in this Appeal only states that the Prosecution had not filed any Appeal as against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani in C.C.No.18 of 2012, dated 14.10.2014.
6. Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 before the trial Court invited the attention of this Court to framing of charges. According to the learned Counsel, the charge must be definite and specific, however, in the present case, the date on which the Appellant was driven out of the matrimonial home has not been specified. Similarly, the date of alleged second marriage between the first Accused and one Sampoorna @ Chinnaponnu has not been mentioned. In the absence of such specific date in the charge, the charges are vitiated as contemplated under Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.P.C. Further, he would submit that the first charge relates to the alleged occurrence that had taken place during the year 1995. The fourth charge relates to the period 2011. The occurrence which had taken place on a particular date had not been mentioned while framing the charges. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 8/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 The charges are conspicuously absent about the date of occurrence, specified place of occurrence and therefore, such charges are hit by Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.P.C. Further, the 4th charge is not at all maintainable as per Section 198 of Cr.P.C. The fourth charge relates to the alleged offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC. This offence ought not to be investigated by the Police Officer on the complaint given by the affected person. It has to be lodged as private complaint as per Section 198 Cr.P.C which reads as follows:
“198. Prosecution for offences against marriage:-
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that-
(a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;
(b) where such person is the husband and he is serving in any of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised the husband in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) may make a complaint on his behalf;
(c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under [Section 494 or Section 495] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother( Uploaded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis or sister, [with the leave of the Court, by any on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 9/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption].
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or section 498 of the said Code:
Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf.
(3) When in any case falling under clause (a) of the proviso section (1), the complaint is sought to be made on behalf of a person under the age of eighteen years or of a lunatic by a person who has not been appointed or declared by a competent authority to be the guardian of the person of the minor or lunatic, and the Court is satisfied that there is a guardian so appointed or declared, the Court shall, before granting the application for leave, cause notice to be given to such guardian and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) The authorisation referred to in clause (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1), shall be in writing, shall be signed or otherwise attested by the husband, shall contain a statement to the effect that he has been informed of the allegations upon which the complaint is to be founded, shall be countersigned by his Commanding Officer, and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by that Officer to the effect that leave of absence for the purpose of making a complaint in person cannot for the time being be granted to the husband.
(5) Any document purporting to be such an authorisation and complying with the provisions of sub-section (4), and any document purporting to be a certificate required by that sub-
section shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be genuine and shall be received in evidence.
(6) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where such offence consists of sexual inter-course by a man with his own wife, the wife being under [eighteen years of age], if more than one year has elapsed from the date of the commission of the offence.
(7) The provisions of this Section apply to the abetment of, or attempt to commit, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis an offence as they apply to the offence.” ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 10/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
7. Further, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 invited the attention of this Court to the complaint under Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.W-1 in the cross examination. In the cross-examination of P.W- 1, she had specifically stated that she was not aware of the contents of Ex.P-1 at all. Further, the admission made in the cross examination by the prosecution witnesses are necessary to be referred to and they are as follows:
“PW1 ehd; nfhgpj;Jf;bfhz;L ehd; v';fs; mk;kh tPl;ow;F bry;ntd;/ mg;bghGbjy;yhk; vdJ mk;kh vdf;F mwpt[iu Twp kPz;Lk; vd;id vd; fzth; tPl;oy; bfhz;L te;J tpLthh;/ vdJ khkdhhplk; Twp tpl;Ltpl;L bry;thh;/ vd;id 10 gt[d; eif th';fp tur; brhd;dhh;fs; vd;W bgha;ahf brhy;fpnwd; vd;W brhd;dhy; mJ rhpay;y/” “rk;g{h;zk; vd;fpw rpd;dg;bghz;Z vd;gth; vdJ tPl;Lf;fhuh; njhl;lj;jpw;F mUfhikapy;
FoapUf;fpwhh;/ mth; tptrhaf;Typ ntiyf;F
bry;thh;/ mth; v';fs; njhl;lj;jpy; ntiyf;F
tutpy;iy/ nkw;go rk;g{h;zj;ij vd; fzth;
,uz;lhtJ jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;stpy;iy vd;W
brhd;dhy; mJ rhpay;y/ gHdpr;rhkpaplk; tpguj;ij bjhpe;jt[ld; ehDk; vdJ mg;gh. mk;kht[k; neuhf fhty;epiyak; brd;W vjphp kPJ g[fhh;
bfhLj;jhh;fs;/ ve;j njjpapy; gHdpr;rhkp v';fsplk; 1k; vjphpia ,uz;lhk; jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;ljhf vd;W brhd;dhy; mJ vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy/ ehDk; 1k; vjphpa[k; gilahl;rp ,dj;ij nrh;e;jth;fs; vd;gjhYk; v';fSf;F Fy tHf;fg;go khkd; kfd;
mj;ij kfd; vd;W cwtpdh; jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lhy; jpUkzj;jpd;nghJ tujl;riz bfhLg;gJk; tHf;fkpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; v';fs;
Chpy; mg;go fpilahJ/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm )
11/24
Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
PW2
vdJ gf;fj;J njhl;lj;Jf;fhuh; vdJ rpj;jg;gh
kfd; Mthh;/ mtUk; 2tJ jpUkzj;ij gw;wp
nfs;tpg;gl;L jhd; brhd;dhh; vd;W brhd;dhy;
rhpay;y/ 1k; vjphp khiya[ld; epd;W bfhz;oUe;jij ghh;j;jhfr; brhd;dhh;/ rnfhjuh;. rnfhjhp tifapy;
jpUkzk; bra;J bfhLj;jhy; gilahl;rp rhjp tujl;riz bfhLg;gJk; th';FtJk; gHf;fkpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/” “ vjphpfs; tPl;oy; vd;d ele;jJ vd;gJ gw;wp vdf;F neuoahf bjhpahJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ ” “vdJ kUkfdhy; vdJ FLk;gj;jpwnfh vdJ kfSf;nfh ve;j bjhe;jt[k; ,y;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ PW3 vdJ kfs; 3 khjk; fh;g;gkhf ,Uf;Fk;nghJ rz;il nghl;Lf;bfhz;L v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;jth; vjphpfs; tPl;ow;F bry;ynt ,y;iybad;why; rhpay;y/ PW4 g[fhh; bfhLf;f brd;wnghJ tre;jh.
mth;fSila bgw;nwhh;fs; te;J vd;id miHj;Jr; brd;whh;fs;/ g[fhh; bfhLg;gjw;F ehDk;. vd;id nghd;W 5 egh;fSk;. tre;jh kw;Wk; mth;fSila bghw;nwhh;fs; fhty;epiyaj;jpw;F brd;wpUe;njhk;/ 1Mk; vjphp rpd;dg;bghz;Z (v) rurhs; vd;gtiu 2tJ jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lhh; vd;Wk;. mtiu gpoj;J te;J tre;jht[ld; nrh;e;J thH itf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; g[fhh; bra;jpUe;njhk;/ g[fhh;
bfhLj;j md;W nghyPrhh; vJt[k; tprhuiz bra;atpy;iy/ kWehs; ehDk;. rhl;rp gHdpr;rhkpa[k; cjtp Ma;thsiu miHj;Jf; bfhz;L 2tJ tPl;ow;F brd;W tprhhpj;njhk;/ mg;nghJ m';F 1Mk; vjphpapd; jhahUk; jfg;gdhUk; tPl;oy; ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ igad;
v';nfh brd;Wtpl;lhd; vd;W 2. 3 vjphpfs;
brhy;yptpl;lhh;fs;/ cjtp Ma;thsh; mth;fis clnd fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F thU';fs; vd;W brhd;dhh;fs;/ mth;fSk; fhty;epiyaj;jpw;F te;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/ ” “1Mk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis vjphp( Uploadedu'; frhkp 08:40:37 jpUkzk;
on: 21/03/2025 pm ) bra;J 12/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 bfhs;stpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ mth; 2tJ jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lJ cz;ikjhd;/ ”
8. By referring to the above statement of the Prosecution Witnesses in the cross-examination, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 invited the attention of this Court to the deposition P.W-9 and P.W-10 in their cross-examination which reads as follows:--
“PW9 6/11/1995k; njjp jpUkzk; Md ehspypUe;J Fw;wk; ele;jjhf vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ Mdhhy; g[fhhpy; ve;j njjpapypUe;J Fw;wk; ele;jjhf Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ” PW10 vt;tst[/ eiffs; tujl;rizahf nfl;lhh;fs; vd;gJ gw;wp Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ” “ Mdhy; mth; 1k; vjphpf;Fk; 4k; vjphpf;Fk; jpUkzk; ele;jjhf kl;Lk; brhy;ypapUf;fpwhh;/ “1k; vjphpf;Fk; 4k; vjphpf;Fk; ele;jjhf brhy;yg;gLk; jpUkzk; vg;nghJ ele;jJ vd;gJ gw;wp vdJ tprhuizapy; bjhpe;J bfhs;stpy;iy ePjpd;wj;jpw;F bjhpag;gLj;jtpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ” Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;ifapy; rk;gtk; ele;j neuk;.
ele;j ,lk; Mfpatw;iw Fwpj;J Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/” ”
9. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the date on which the so-called second marriage( Uploaded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was solemnised between the first Accused and one on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 13/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 Sampoorna @ Chinnaponnu. Even P.W-10, the Investigation Officer admitted that he had not caused any investigation as to the date on which the first Accused allegedly contracted a second marriage with the said Sampoorna @ Chinnaponnu. By pointing out the above inconsistencies in the testimony of the Prosecution Witnesses and in the absence of any specific date mentioned to show that a second marriage contracted by the first Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani is wholly justified in acquitting the Accused.
10. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 also invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, particularly, Section 2 and 4 which read as follows:
“2. Definition of ''dowry'' -In this Act, ''dowry'' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before [or any time after the marriage] [ in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal Law(Shariat) applies.
4.Penalty for demanding dowry-- if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be (less https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis than six months, but which may extend to Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 14/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
Provided the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.”
11. He also referred to Section 2 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,1998 which reads as follows:
“2. Definitions : In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
[(a) ''harassment'' means any indecent conduct or act by man which causes or is likely to cause intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment, including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force;]
(b) ''Public Service available'' shall have the same meaning as defined in clause (35) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988);
( c) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act XLV of 1860).
4.Penalty for [harassment of woman] – Whoever commits or participates in or abets [harassment of women] in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [three years and] with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees''
12. In this case, the Accused No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the De facto Complainant P.W.1. Therefore, the charges framed against Accused-3 will not hold good. The clubbing of charges is different. As per Sections 218 and 219 Cr.P.C, the charge shall be specific and definite. This fact is not admitted by the officer who had registered the FIR P.W.9. The same fact was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 15/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 admitted by the Investigation Officer-P.W.10 in his cross examination. Therefore, the judgment dated 14.10.2014 is a well considered and well- reasoned judgment which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Appeal lacks merit and hence, it has to be dismissed.
13. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Crl.A.No.97 of 2015, Dated 30.07.2021 [Mariyappan and another -vs-
State by the Inspector of Police, Nagarasampatti Police Station, Krishnagiri District]
2. 2012 (1) MWN (Cri.) 154 Mad [Anbazhagan -vs- State]
3. Crl.O.P.No.7405 of 2017, Dated 06.12.2018 [G.Logeswaran -vs- State and another]
14. On the above contentions, this Court also heard the submissions of the learned Counsel Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran appearing for the Respondents 6 and 7 in this Appeal.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the judgment dated 14.10.2014 in C.C.No.18 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, acquitting the Accused of the charges is to be set aside as perverse?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 16/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
15. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant/De facto Complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first Respondent/State, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4 and the learned Counsel for the Respondents 6 and 7/Accused 5 and 6.
16. Perused the charges framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, perused the evidence of the Prosecution through P.W-1 to P.W-10, documents marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 and also the judgment dated 14.10.2014 in C.C.No.18 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.
17. P.W.1- De facto Complainant is the Appellant herein. P.W-2 is the Father of P.W-1. P.W-3 is the Mother of P.W-1. P.W-4 is a relative of P.W-1 as well as first Accused. P.W-5 is the uncle of P.W-1. P.W-6 and P.W- 7 are Mahazar Witnesses. P.W-8 is the witness to the rough sketch drawn by P.W-10. P.W-9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint given by P.W-1. P.W-10 is the Investigation Officer in this case, who filed the charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 6.
18. On perusal of the charges, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5/Accused 1 to 4, there is no specific dates https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 17/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 mentioned in the charges 1, 2, 3 and 4. As per Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Charge shall specify the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and date of occurrence. As per Section 219 Cr.P.C. three offences of the same kind within a year may be charged together. Here the Charge No.1 relates to offence that had taken place in the year 1995. The Charge-2 relates to offence of the year 1995. The Charge No.3 relates to offence subsequent to that. The Charge No.4 relates to offence in the year 2011. Therefore, the charge framed against the Accused gives rise to an impression that from 1995 till 2011 the Appellant was continuously subjected to matrimonial cruelty for over a period of 16 years.
19. The first Charge relates to the alleged offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Charge No.2 relates to the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Charge No.3 relates to the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Charge No.4 relates to the alleged offence punishable under 494, 494 r/w. 109 of IPC. As per Section 198 of Cr.P.C which deals with prosecution for offence against marriage that the offence that had continuously taken place for over a period of 16 years and it is contrary to Section 198 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 18/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
20. As far as the charge against the first Accused that he married another woman during the subsistence of marriage with the Appellant, the father of the De facto Complainant, in his examination, has stated that “1tJ vjphp u';frhkp jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;stpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. mth; 2Mk; jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lJ cz;ikjhd;/”. Here the complaint under Ex.P-1 was with regard to matrimonial cruelty, to which the Appellant was subjected to by the Accused 1 to 3 and the alleged second marriage, preferred by the first Accused/husband with another woman. The Accused 4 to 6 have been roped in as Accused on the ground that it was they, who have witnessed the so-called second marriage between the first Accused and another woman. For the purpose of examining the veracity of the complaint under Ex.P-1, the deposition of P.W-1 is to be looked into.
21. P.W-1-Complainant in her cross-examination stated that she does not know the contents of the Complaint under Ex.P-1. In criminal cases, when the contents of the Complaint is not known to the Complainant, then the entire case of the Prosecution is demolished. The deposition of P.W-1 that she does not know the contents of the complaint goes to the very root of the credibility of the case projected by the prosecution and consequently, the case of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 19/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 prosecution has to be rejected.
22. P.W-2 and P.W-3 are the father and mother of P.W-1. In their cross-examination, they too had admitted that P.W-1, after delivery of the child, had gone to live with her husband in the matrimonial home after lapse of seven years after the marriage. Therefore, the offence under Section 498A or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not at all attracted. Apart from that, the only cited independent witness P.W-5 in his cross-examination admitted that he had not seen or witnessed the marriage. In fact, P.W-5 is not an independent witness as contended by the Counsel for the Appellant. P.W-5 is also related to the Appellant. The deposition of P.W-5 is also hearsay and he had stated that he heard the first Accused married another woman. Therefore, his evidence will not help the Prosecution to prosecute the Accused for the offence under Section 494 of IPC (Bigamy). Apart from that, there is no proof regarding the first Accused contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage with the Appellant.
23. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there are sufficient materials available in the form of deposition of P.W-1 to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 20/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 P.W-10. However, on going through the deposition of P.W-1 to P.W-10, they are not only contrary but bereft of any material particulars. As regards the so- called second marriage contracted by the first Accused, none of the Prosecution Witnesses have stated that they have witnessed the said marriage. The Prosecution is attempting to built a fortress without a strong foundation and thereby leaving it to be weak and infirm. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, in the light of admissions made in the cross-examination by the Prosecution witnesses, the Trial Judge is justified in acquitting the Accused.
24. It is well settled that cross-examination of witnesses is done to elicit materials relevant to the case and to unearth the correctness of their statement in the chief-examination. Therefore, in the light of admissions made by the Prosecution Witnesses 1 to 5 in this case, the Accused are entitled to acquittal, which was correctly recorded by the learned Trial Judge. Above all, the Complaint under Ex.P-1 mentioned occurrence from 1995 till 2011 (16 years) describing the events from the date of marriage till the date of alleged second marriage. Further, as per Section 198 of Cr.P.C., the Appellant ought to have filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, but it was not done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 21/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015
25. It is well settled that if the finding of the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court will not disturb such finding of the trial Court. This is because the trial Court had the advantage of appreciating the demeanour of the witnesses, which is not available to the Appellate Court. In any event, while interfering with a judgment of acquittal, it is well settled that the Appellate Court must be slow and cautious to substitute it's finding than the one arrived at by the Trial Court. Thus, if there are two views possible, the one which is most favourable to the Accused has to be extended by confirming the judgment of acquittal.
26. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents 2 to 7/Accused 1 to 6. The judgment dated 14.10.2014 in C.C.No.18 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, acquitting the Accused of the charges is found to be a well reasoned judgment which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The same is to be confirmed.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 22/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 14.10.2014 in C.C.No.18 of 2012 is confirmed.
09.08.2024 vsn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, Erode District.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Bhavani, Erode & District
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 23/24 Crl. Appeal No. 278 of 2015 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP. J vsn Judgment in Crl. A. No.278 of 2015 09.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:37 pm ) 24/24