CHANDRASEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 60 of 2005 on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. He was convicted for offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under Section 498(A), he was sentenced to undergo six months SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo one month SI, for the offence under Section 406 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo six months SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month SI and for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, he was sentenced to undergo three months SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month SI. The said convictions were confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 216 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1 and the first accused fell in love with each other and had married on 11.09.2002 and they were living separately. P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the grand mother and P.W.4 is the uncle of P.W.1. The love marriage was not approved by the members of the first accused family, but subsequently, P.W.1 went along with her husband to her mother-in-law's place and she stayed for 15 days. The second accused got jewels from P.W.1 saying that it would be kept safely. When P.W.1 demanded those jewels later on, she was informed by P.W.2 that jewels have been sold. The first accused was residing with P.W.1 and by abandoning her, he had gone to his parents house. P.W.1 also gave birth to a male child on 23.07.2003. Even after birth of the child, the first accused had not come to take care of the child. Father of P.W.1 died on 03.02.2004. On 26.02.2004, P.W.1 sent a notice to the first accused through her lawyer for divorce. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for giving consent for divorce. She gave a complaint before All Women Police Station, Coimbatore. The husband of P.W.1 was called and the matter was compromised. The Inspector of Police instructed the first accused to take P.W.1 and live with her. In spite of his promise, he had not taken P.W.1 to the matrimonial home. During September 2004, P.W.1 went to the house of A1 & A2 and at that time, the third accused was also present. The second accused refused to take P.W.1 stating that unless a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and 25 sovereigns of jewels were given, she would not be permitted to live with her husband. Again on 21.10.2004, P.W.1 along with her mother, P.W.2 including P.W.4 and others went to the house of the accused and at that time also, the accused demanded for Rs. 1 lakh and 25 sovereigns of jewels. On the next date i.e. 22.10.2004, P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.P.1. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered and the matter was investigated and final report was filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. In order to establish the case, prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, marked Ex.Ps.1 & 2. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied their complicity. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence, acquitted the Accused Nos. 2 & 3 and convicted the first accused alone. The said conviction was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below convicted the first accused on vague allegations. P.W.1 has not given any specific evidence regarding cruelty. The accused also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The charge is that on 21.10.2004, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and 25 sovereigns of gold, but in the evidence, P.W.1 stated that she went along with her family members and also with one Ibrahim and the independent person has not been examined by the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the version of P.W.1 that jewels were given to the accused and those jewels were not retuned was not mentioned in Ex.D1, the divorce notice sent by P.W.1. He also submitted that the Courts below erred in convicting the accused under Dowry Prohibition Act, since even according to the prosecution case, the marriage between the first accused and P.W.1 is a love marriage. There is no demand of any dowry and the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted.