Arivukanni vs Saravanan and Others

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This Revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC. No. I,) Chengalput. The complaint preferred by P.W.1-Arivukanni, the wife of the accused, was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G-3 Chittamoor Police Station under Crime No. 27/2002 u/s 498A, IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathuranthagam, as C.C. No. 152 of 2002 and on appearance of the accused copies u/s 207 of Cr.P.C, were furnished to the accused and when the charges u/s 498A, IPC was explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.

On the side of the prosecution P.W.I to P.W.7 were examined and Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.3 were marked.

The complainant-Arivukanni, as P.W.1, would depose that marriage between her and the accused Saravanan took place on 15.3.2001 and it was a registered marriage and after the marriage she and her husband were leading a separate life at Chethupakkam and the marriage was consummated and she delivered a male child on 21.6.2001 in. Government Hospital at Chengalput and that her husband never took her and the child to her in-laws'' house, but by saying that he is suffering from chest pain the accused insisted her to bring Rs. 1,00,000 for getting treatment from her parents'' house. She would depose that sinceshe could not get money from her parents'' house, the accused took her to her parents'' house and deserted her, which necessitated her to file a complaint before the Chittamoor police and that Ex. P.I is her complaint.

P.W.2 is the father of P.W.I. According to him, the registered marriage between P.W.I and the accused took place on 15.3.2001 and that no one from the accused''s family attended the marriage and after the marriage both P.W.I and the accused lived happily at Chethupakkam and that after the marriage P.W.I had delivered a male child on 21.6.2002. According to P.W.2, the accused had left P.W.I in his (P.W.2) house on one day at 1.30 a.m. and that P.W.I had informed him (P.W.2) that the accused had demanded Rs. 1,00,000 to meet the expenses for his heart surgery. He would further depose that thereafter, he went to the accused and requested him to live with his daughter P.W.I amicably. But the accused had refused to take back P.W.I and that he convened a Panchayat for amicable settlement between P.W.1 and the accused, but the accused had not heeded to the advice of the Panchayators and that he took P.W.1 to the police station and the complaint was preferred by his daughter P.W.1.

P. W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.I and P.W.2.

P.W.4 is one of the Panchayators, who had mediated P.W.I and the accused. But he would depose that Panchayat did not fructified. Ex. P.2 is the decision taken in the Panchayat.

P.W.5 is also another Panchayator, who would corroborate the evidence of P.W.4.

P. W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he was treated as hostile witness.

P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the case on the basis of Ex. P.1 under Cr. No. 27 of 2002 u/s 498A, IPC. He had arrested the accused on 3.2.2002 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet on 27.3.2002 against the accused u/s 498A and also u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex. P.3 is FIR.

When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, he would deny his complicity with the crime. The accused has not let in any evidence on his side. After going through the oral and documentary evidence available before her, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused u/s 498A, IPC and u/s 4 of DP Act, and accordingly convicted Al u/s 498A, IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence and also convicted Al u/s 4 of DP Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence and convicted A2 u/s 498A, IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with default sentence and acquitted A2 u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C, from the charges u/s 4 of DP Act. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court both Al and A2 have preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 74 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No. 1), Chengalput. The first Appellate Court after scanning the evidence and also giving due deliberation to the submissions made by the Counsel on either side, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against both Al and A2 were not proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court against Al and A2 thereby setting both Al and A2 at liberty, which necessitated the complainant-P.W.1 to prefer this revision. The State has not preferred any appeal over the judgment of the First Appellate Court in C.A. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC. No. 1), Chengalput.

Heard Mr. S. Kalyana Raman learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. D.J. Venkatesan learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor and considered their rival submissions.

Now the point for determination in this revision is whether any prima facie case has been made out against the accused to warrant conviction u/s 498A, IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

The Point: The Revision has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the important point to be considered in this revision is whether the findings of the learned First Appellate Court is perverse in nature. P.W.I in her evidence would admit that she became pregnant even before the marriage with accused. This fact was also admitted by her parents who examined before the Trial Court as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. Before the Trial Court P.W.I would depose that after the marriage they lived happily for few months and within four months from the date of registration of the marriage she gave birth to a male child at the Government Hospital at Chengalput and since they belong to different community the accused, her husband, never took her to her in-laws'' house, but both of them lived happily in a house at Chethupakkam. It is the definite case of P.W.1 that her husband-accused asked her to bring Rs. 1,00,000 from her parents'' house to meet the expenses for getting treatment for his chest pain. That is the only allegation of demand of dowry by P.W.I in the box before the Trial Court. But this allegation is conspicuously absent in the complaint-Ex. P.1 preferred by her before the police on 3.2.2002. In Ex. P.1-complaint P.W.I has no where stated that the accused had demanded her to bring Rs. 1,00,000 from her parents'' house to meet the expenses for taking treatment for chest pain. She would further state in Ex. P.1-complaint that after she gave birth to a son considering her poverty the accused had removed her son from her custody to her in-laws'' house, but a few lines later in the same complaint-Ex. P.1 she would state that the accused had taken out a house at Pudur village for rent and allowed her and her child to live there alone and every day the accused used to visit his parents'' house leaving her and her child alone in the house. Apart from this there is absolutely no allegation of any demand of dowry or any other cruelty meted out by her at the hands of the accused. The allegation that the accused had removed her son from her legal custody is a patent lie seen from the subsequent narration of facts by her in Ex. P.1-complaint itself. While in the box P.W.I has not complained of any other cruelty meted out by her at the hands of the accused. The learned First Appellate Court taking into consideration all these facts has come to the correct conclusion that the charges levelled against both the accused have not been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in C.A. No. 74 of 2003, which in my considered opinion neither illegal nor infirm to warrant any interference from this Court in this revision. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court in C.A. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC. No. 1), Chengalput.