Muniyappa vs State

V. Jagannathan

This criminal revision petition is filed by A- 1 who was convicted by the trial court in respect of the offence punishable u/s 498A of the IPC and also in respect of section 4 of the D.P. Act and was sentenced to undergo six months S.I. for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC with a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in respect of the offence u/s 4 of the. D.P. Act, to undergo S.I. for three months. The said judgment was called in question by the petitioner before the lower appellate court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The case of the prosecution in short is that, complainant Mangalamma was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner who happens to be her husband and three other accused persons who are the in-laws and other relatives of the first accused. The said complaint led to the case being registered against five accused persons for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Following the filing of the charge sheet and the accused not pleading guilty, the trial court after evidence appreciation, acquitted the accused Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the offences. However, A-1 the husband was convicted u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and was acquitted in respect of section 3 of the D.P. Act. The appellate court concurred with the trial court in all respects.

Learned Counsel Sri K.N. Ravikumar for the petitioner by referring to the evidence on record, argued that the only allegation made out against the accused persons is that the first accused being the husband of complainant Mangalamma said to have taken second wife. However, this was not proved before the trial court and therefore even conviction u/s 498-A of IPC is not sustainable. As far as section 4 of the D.P. Act is concerned, submission made is that, there is also no evidence to connect the first petitioner with the said offence as well and as the trial court has acquitted the first petitioner in respect of section 3 of the D.P. Act, question of giving or taking dowry does not arise. In the alternative, submission made is that, in the event of this Court not finding any material to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below, the sentence u/s 498-A be modified as the petitioner has already undergone custody for 44 days.

Learned Government Pleader Sri P. Karunakar on the other hand submitted that the courts below have rightly accepted the prosecution case insofar as the offences u/s 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the D.P. Act being made out against the petitioner is concerned and therefore no interference is called for.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the material on record, insofar as the petitioner herein being the husband of the complainant having taken one Subbamma in second marriage is concerned, except the oral say of the witnesses PWs 1 and 2, there is no other material placed to establish the second marriage of the petitioner with one Subbamma. However, the harassment given to the complainant by the accused petitioner has been established and both the courts have concurred on this ''aspect of the matter. The evidence of PW-1 the complainant clearly shows that she was subjected to harassment both physically and mentally by the first accused i.e. the husband. As far as the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act is concerned, both the courts have found that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that A-1 demanded dowry of Rs. 25,000/- from his wife and her parents for purchase of auto. As such, the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court therefore does not suffer from any infirmity for this Court to interfere in revision.

As far as the sentence is concerned, since the petitioner is said to have undergone custody for nearly 44 days, which submission is not seriously challenged by the learned Government Pleader for the State, in my view, having regard to the nature of the complaint allegations and the incident dating back to the year 1994 and more than 18 years having elapsed, the petitioner must have undergone sufficient mental agony on account of the matter being pending all these years in various courts. Taking this into account and the period already spent in custody, in my view, S.I. can be confined to the period already undergone in custody. But however, the fine amount can be increased so that the same can be paid to the complainant as compensation.

For the above reasons, the following order is passed.

The conviction of the petitioner by the trial court is confirmed.

As far as sentence is concerned, the period imposed by the trial court is modified into period already undergone by the petitioner in custody earlier and so far as the fine amount is concerned, in place of Rs. 6,000/-, the fine is increased to Rs. 15,000/-, which amount shall be paid to the complainant Mangalamma as compensation and in default of payment of the aforesaid fine amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the first petitioner shall undergo further default sentence of S.I. for one month.

The petition filed therefore fails except in respect of the modification of the sentence as mentioned above.