S.NALLATHAMBI Vs. KALIYAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore in C.A. No. 51 of 1997, dated 28.10.2002 revising the order of conviction passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Vridhachalam in S.C. No. 107 of 1995, dated 20.10.1997. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge Vridhachalam by an order dated 20.10.1997 passed in S.C. No. 107 of 1995, convicted the accused/respondents 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, each of them undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore by an order dated 28.10.2002 passed in C.A. No. 51 of 1997 acquitted the accused from the conviction and sentence by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, though the trial Court convicted the accused, the Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely on the ground of delay in the registering of F.I.R. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued in detail stating that the petitioner has taken all the steps to bring to the notice of the Court, the reasons for the delay, especially, their apprehension of the post mortem being done to the deceased. This vital factor was not considered by the Court below. Further, they have let in evidence to show that there are possibilities of harassment due to dowry demand. But, these factors are not considered by the Court below. Hence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the acquittal of the accused by the Appellate Court is not in accordance with law.

(3.) Though notice was served and the names of the respondents 1 to 3 were printed in the cause list, none appeared for the respondents 1 to 3.