Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 803 (MAD)

Ramalakshmi v. Sudalaiyandi

2015-02-10

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment 1. P.W.1/defacto complainant is the revision petitioner and aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 19.05.2005 made in C.C.No.139 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, she has filed this revision. 2. According to the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant, the first respondent is her husband and the second respondent is the brother of the first respondent and the third respondent is her mother-in-law and the fourth respondent is the sister of the first respondent. The marriage between her and the first respondent was solemnised about 14 years prior to 2003 and out of wedlock, three children were born. The first respondent herein was employed as a Cashier in a private Bank and both of them were residing at Apparsamy Kovil Street at Thiruvottriyur. The revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant would further allege that the first respondent has developed intimacy with one Alagurani and on account of the same, started harassing and humiliating her and further demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and on the protest of demanding balance of 15 sovereigns of jewels, which were promised to be given, all the private respondents had attacked her at about 15.00 hours on 02.05.2003 and caused injuries and also driven her out of the matrimonial home. P.Ws.3 and 4 said to have witnessed the occurrence. 3. The revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant has informed the said fact of assault to her brother, namely P.W.2 through telephonically and thereafter, she has lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 at about 06.30 p.m., on 02.05.2003 to P.W.8. P.W.9, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced investigation and in the presence of P.W.5, has prepared the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P.2 and also prepared the rough sketch marked as Ex.P.5. The petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant was sent on medical memo and P.W.7 doctor, who was on duty, has examined her and found that she sustained a lacerated injury measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left forearm and opined that it was a simple injury and issued Ex.P.3-wound certificate. P.W.9, after examining witnesses and collecting documents, has filed the final report charging the respondents 1 to 4/accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and it was taken on file in C.C.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi. 4. P.W.9, after examining witnesses and collecting documents, has filed the final report charging the respondents 1 to 4/accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and it was taken on file in C.C.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi. 4. The respondents 1 to 4/accused had summoned and charges were framed and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and prayed for trial of the case. 5. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, had examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. 6. The respondents 1 to 4/accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. 7. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/accused, the first respondent herein/first accused was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked. 8. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has acquitted all the accused, vide order dated 19.05.2005 and challenging the legality of the same, P.W.1/defacto complainant has filed this revision. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant would contend that though the independent witnesses, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 had turned hostile, the sole testimony of the injured witness, namely P.W.1-the petitioner herein has established the case of the prosecution and it is also supported by medical evidence in the form of Ex.P.3-the wound certificate issued by P.W.7 as to the assault on 02.05.2003. Insofar as the criminal intimidation and demand of dowry is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that through the testimony of P.W.1 and her brother, who was examined as P.W.2, intimidation and the demand of dowry has been proved and the Trial Court, without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, has erroneously acquitted all the accused and prayed for allowing the revision and remanding the matter once again to the Trial Court. 10. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the fifth respondent/State would contend that the State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents is absent. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment as well as the original records. 11. 10. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the fifth respondent/State would contend that the State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents is absent. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment as well as the original records. 11. Apart from the testimony of P.W.1/the petitioner herein, who said to have suffered a minor injury on 02.05.2003 at about 15.00 hours, the independent witnesses, namely P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support their testimonies and turned hostile. The Trial Court, on going through the testimony of P.W.7 and Ex.P.3, found that P.W.1 suffered a lacerated injury of 3 x 2 cm and it was a simple injury and admittedly, her brother, who was examined as P.W.2, was not present at the time of occurrence and the independent witnesses, who said to have witnessed the occurrence, namely P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile and found that the testimony of the injured witness did not inspire confidence. 12. Insofar as the demand of dowry and criminal intimidation is concerned, the Trial Court has taken into consideration of the fact that P.W.2-the brother of the revision petitioner/P.W.1 would admit that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was, in fact, sent by the first respondent to him and also found that the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and the criminal intimidation have not been substantiated. 13. The Trial Court also found that with regard to the alleged contracting of second marriage by the first respondent/first accused with one Alagurani, a private complaint filed under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is also pending adjudication and further, taking into consideration the testimony of D.W.1/first accused and Exs.D.1 to D.6, found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court has also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses available in the original records and found that except the testimony of P.W.1, who said to have suffered a simple lacerated injury, the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and as regards the demand of dowry and the criminal intimidation, the testimony of the brother of P.W.1, who was examined as P.W.2, also did not inspire confidence. 14. 14. In the considered opinion of the Court, the Trial Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and rightly arrived at a decision to acquit all the accused by awarding benefit of doubt. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, is of the view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused. Therefore, the Revision is dismissed.