Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2042 (MAD)

C. Kandammal v. S. Chellaperumal

2003-12-11

A.PACKIARAJ

body2003
ORDER This revision has been filed against the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in CA.No. 85 of 1998; setting aside the conviction rendered by the judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli in C.C.No. 5 of 1997 of the respondents 1 to 3 of offences under Section 498- A, IPC and 498- A r/w 109 IPC 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that P.W.1- Kandammal, is the wife of A-1Chellaperumal and A-2 and A-3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of P.W.1. They were residents of Melakulam Village. The marriage between P.W.1 and A-1, as per Hindu rites was performed on 4-1-1996 and at the time of marriage 7 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 5,000/- in cash was given to A-1. Thereafter, they were living together as joint family in the said village. However, four days later A-2 and A-3 told P.W.1 that the jewels and cash brought by her by way of dowry is not enough and hence demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition. When the same was reported by P.W.1 to A-1, namely her husband, he had also given a stamp of approval to the demand made by his parents. At that juncture, P.W.1 has expressed her in ability to demand her parents for such a huge amount stating that her parents were not so very rich. It is thereupon, on 10-1-1996 at about 12.00 noon, A-1 by catching hold of the tuft of P.W.1 beat her and in the course of the same, A-2 and A-3 sent her out of the matrimonial abode stating that unless she brings the money, she cannot live with them. It is further stated that at the time of ill-treatment, the neighbours questioned as to why they should treat P.W.1 so badly, whereupon they were asked to mind their own business. The matter was then reported by P.W.1 to her parents, consequent upon which, a complaint was given to the All Women Police Station, who on receipt of the same registered a case and took up investigation. After completion of the same, the final report was filed against the accused for the above-said offences. 3. The prosecution, among the witnesses examined to prove the case, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.4, the neighbours examined on the said of the prosecution have turned hostile. After completion of the same, the final report was filed against the accused for the above-said offences. 3. The prosecution, among the witnesses examined to prove the case, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.4, the neighbours examined on the said of the prosecution have turned hostile. P.W.1 in clear terms has stated about as to how the marriage took place and how she was treated. Though they have been cross-examined in detail, nothing material has been brought out on record to discredit her version. The learned Magistrate, believed the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and has convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. However, on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge took a different view and has acquitted the accused. 4. The case of the accused is one of denial. Their defence is that no marriage was ever performed between P.W.1 and A-1 and that A-1 is also a mentally retarded person. The appellate Court, took a contrary view from that of the trial court and has acquitted the accused, firstly, holding that there was no such complaint dated 11-1-1996 on record and secondly, that there was no subsistence of marriage between P.W.1 and A-1 and that consequently, the demand and other things would not attract Section 498-A, IPC. 5. The learned Sessions Judge no doubt has incorporated the evidence of P.W.1 given in Chief-examination and that afterwards he went on to rely on a suit filed by A-1, namely the husband of P.W.1 in D.S.No. 518 of 1996, before the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli and the suit filed in D.S.No. 541 of 1996, by P.W.1 before the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli for claiming maintenance. However, the learned Judge, as stated above, has acquitted the accused, firstly, on the ground that the complaint given on 11-1-1996 was not before the Court, but the complaint given on 1-2-1996 alone was present. 6. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case solely on the basis of the complaint dated 11-1-1996 was missing. I am afraid that the learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued the specific evidence of the witnesses that on 11-1-1996 a complaint was given to the All Women Police Station. However, it could be seen that the said complaint was transferred to the present Police Station and the same was registered on 1-2-1996. I am afraid that the learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued the specific evidence of the witnesses that on 11-1-1996 a complaint was given to the All Women Police Station. However, it could be seen that the said complaint was transferred to the present Police Station and the same was registered on 1-2-1996. Therefore, from the above it is clear that the complaint given on 11-1-1996 is very much available and it is on that complaint, which has been registered as Crime No.3 of 1996, investigation has been carried on. In fact, a reading of the FIR would clearly establish that on 1-2-1996 at about 6.00 p.m. when the Sub Inspector of Police was in the Police Station, the complaint given by P.W.1, dated 11-1-1996 was received by him and the same has been registered as a crime. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely wrong in giving such a finding that the complaint dated 11-1-1996 is not before the Court. 7. The second ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused is by saying that the marriage between P.W.1 and A-1 had not been performed at all. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there had been no marriage at all between P.W.1 and A-1 and that when once there was no subsistence of marriage, the subsequent illtreatment by A-for the alleged demand becomes falsified and consequently the learned Judge has acquitted the accused. However, it is to be noted that accused themselves have accepted that the marriage took place, but the only circumstance under which it came to be performed differs. 8. In addition to the above, in another place of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge himself at Paragraph-II, holds that the appellant had married P.W.1 on 4-1-1996, but only it was on free will or not; was doubtful. Therefore, in the circumstances, I feel that the learned Sessions Judge has not given proper reasons to reverse the findings of the trial Court. 9. In my view, having held that the marriage had taken place, but consent of the accused alone is doubtful, the holding of the appellate Judge to the effect that the demand and ill-treatment was false cannot be justified. 9. In my view, having held that the marriage had taken place, but consent of the accused alone is doubtful, the holding of the appellate Judge to the effect that the demand and ill-treatment was false cannot be justified. The further holding of the learned Judge that once if the marriage has not been performed with the consent, automatically an offence under Section 498-A IPC is not made out, also rules out, since the evidence as such has not been discussed and neither believed, nor disbelieved. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I deem it fit to set aside the judgment of the appellate Court and remand the matter back to the said Court (appellate Court) for reconsidering the evidence and come to a conclusion. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent namely the accused party, submits that there had been civil suit subsequently, wherein it has been held that the accused has not married P.W.1. In the circumstances, it is open for the respective parties to adduce additional evidence after getting the permission of the Court to establish the case with the above observations, the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. 11. In the result, the revision is allowed. The Registry is directed to forthwith send the records, if any, to the Court concerned.