Senthur Pandian vs The State of Tamilnadu

P. Murgesen, J.—This Revision is directed against the order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.

1, Tirunelveli in C.A. No. 30 of 2004 dated 23.12.2005 by confirming the order of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in C.C.

No. 56 of 2002 dated 29.01.2004.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i) P.W. 1, Jeyameena, is the resident of Puliangudi. She is the wife of the 1st accused Senthoor Pandian. A2 and A3 are the father-in-law and

mother-in law of P.W. 1 respectively. P.W. 2 is the father of P.W. 1 and P.W. 10 is the mother of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 is the sister of P.W. 1. P.Ws.

4, 8 and 9 were the relative of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is the sister-in-law of the P.W. 1. P.W. 6 is the resident of Periyathazhai. P.W. 7 is the grand father

of P.W. 1.

(ii) The marriage between the petitioner and the P.W. 1 was solemnised on 08.06.2000 at Puliangudi. At the time of marriage 17 sovereign of

jewels and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by cash were given to the accused. After marriage, they lived together at Puliangudi for a month. And she was

pregnant. At that time, all the accused joint together and demanded Rs. 25,000/- as dowry from the P.W. 1. But, she refused to do so. Again,

they demanded dowry in the month of February 2001. She was informed his father through phone about dowry demanded by the accused. Her

father gave Rs. 10,000/- at the time of Seemantham.

(iii) Unfortunately, her child died. Even after that, the accused demanded dowry and tortured her. Then, P.W. 1, gave a complaint to P.W. 8, the

Sub Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Tenkasi. The complaint is Ex. P.1. P.W. 8 received the complaint and registered a case in

Cr.No.71 of 2001 u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and prepared Ex. P.4, the printed First Information Report. She recorded the statements of Jeyameena,

Renuka, Kottiappan, Natarjan and Murugan. On 02.11.2001 at about 21.00 hours, she visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P.2, the

Observation Mahazer and Ex. P.4, the Rough Sketch. Then, the case was placed before the Inspector of Police, Tenkasi.

(iv) P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and examined the witneeses. On 08.11.2001, he recorded the statements of

Shanmugathai, Gandhimathi and Shanthi. On 10.11.2001, P.W. 11 also recorded the statements of Pushpam and Rakkammal. After completing

the investigation, he obtained the opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor and filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 498(A) and

406 I.P.C.

Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined, Exs. P.1 to 4 were marked. No evidence examined on the

side of the petitioner/accused.

On consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri found the first

accused/revision petitioner was guilty u/s 498(A) I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-

in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and the A1 was found not guilty u/s 406 I.P.C and A2 to A5 were found not guilty under

Sections 498(A) and 406 I.P.C and acquitted them.

Aggrieved by the Judgment order of conviction passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, an appeal in C.A. No. 30 of

2004 was preferred by the first accused before the Fast Track Court No. 1, Tirunelveli, and the same was dismissed.

Challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court, this revision has been filed.

The point for determination is:

Whether the Revision is maintainable?

Points:

(i) The jurisdiction of the revisional Court is limited. This Court can interfere only that there was miscarriage of justice or material evidence was

overlooked by the Court below.

(ii) P.W. 1 was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnised on 08.06.2000 at Puliangudi. They lived together happily for one month.

At the time of marriage 17 soverign jewels and a cash of Rs. 10,000/- were given as dowry.

(iii) According to the prosecution, the accused forced his wife to bring Rs. 20,000/-. She was unable to satisfy the demand of the appellant. She

was pregnant. She went her father''s house for her Seemantham and she gave Rs. 10,000/- to her husband. Unfortunately the child was died.

Again the trouble started. Accused demanded her to bring the money to purchase of an Autorickshaw. This was spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 5, the

prosecution witnesses.

(iv) At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments reported in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal

and Ors. 2005 SCC (Cri) 719 and Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra, and argued that the single act would attract u/s 498(A).

There must be some serious of acts to attract the Section 498(A) I.P.C.

(v) The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) argued that the accused demanded the amount many times. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1

would show that even one month after the marriage, there was a demand for of Rs. 25,000/-. After Seemantham, P.W. 1 gave Rs. 10000/-. Not

satisfying with that, again, she was forced to bring money for purchase of an autorickshaw. So, there was demand of dowry.

(vi) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused is not a driver. So, there is no necessity for purchase of an

autorickshaw. The accused having a shop. It is not necessary for the accused to drive the auto. The accused can engage a driver. So the

contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not able to drive, so the demand of auto is not correct. Hence, the plea of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. It would not affect the root of the case of prosecution.

(vii) All the prosecution witnesses spoke clearly about the demand for dowry and she was harrased by the petitioner and his parents. Hence, I find

there is no reason to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On a careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the findings of both the

Courts below are correct. There is no reason to interfere with their decisions.

At this juncture, the counsel submitted that P.W. 1 obtained divorce from the petitioner and she remarried another person. The accused was in

custody for one month. Both the couples had taken a different direction in their matrimonial life. So, Considering the age of the accused and the

nature of the case, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence to one month rigourous imprisonment for the offence u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and

the fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed by the trial Court is confirmed. The sentence already undergone by revision petitioner shall be given set off.

With the above modification regarding the sentence alone, the criminal revision is disposed of.