CHINNAMMAL Vs. M PASHANIANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by a private party are heard together as they arise out of the complaint given by the, appellant herein. The appellant filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari, in C.C. No. 1 of 1977 alleging that the first accused has committed an offence punishable under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and the other accused, namely, accused 2 to 26, have abetted the same. The complaint was taken on file under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as against the first accused and under section 494 read with section 102, Indian Penal Code and also section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act against accused 2 to 26.

(2.) FIRST accused and the appellant, P.W. 1, were on intimate terms. The first accused used to visit her during college days. He used to take her to Hotel Swarka, Salem and also used to go to Cinemas. Their intimacy developed to such an extent that they even stayed alone at a hotel at Salem. The first accused even promised to surmount all obstacles and marry her. That was the reason why, according to the Appellant, she stayed with him in hotels. It was in the month of June, 1971, that there was some talk of choosing a bride for the first accused by his parents, On 8th August, 1971 at about 2-00 p.m. the first accused went to Coimbatore where P.W. 1 was staying and told her that he has no desire to marry the girl chosen by his parents and that he would like to marry her and promised to marry her and requested her to accompany him so that they could marry in a temple. P.W. 1 was mentally perturbed. It so happened that her sister.s hushand, Subramaniam, and her brother, P.W. 6 came to see her. The first accused asked them to help him to marry P.W. 1. They all went and saw P.W. 4 at Kodumudi and on his suggestion the marriage was celebrated at 4.00 a.m., on 9th June, 1971 in the house of P.W. 2. After the marriage, both P.W. 1 and the first accused went and lived with the mother of P.W. 1. The first accused then left her saying that he would persuade his parents to take her home. But, after returning to his parents. house, the first accused gave a police complaint against P.W. 1 and others alleging that he was abducted and was forced to marry P.W. 1. That case ended in acquittal. The first accused did not file any appeal against that order of acquittal. At the mediation of one Ramasami and one Raju, P.W. 1 lived with the first accused in his house. Notwithstanding the cruel treatment of the parents of the first accused, she lived in the house of her husband, the first accused, enduring all the suffering. But the parents of the first accused wanted the first accused marry another girl and as P.W. 1 did not agree to that proposal, she was turned out of the house. After she returned to her mother.s house, she learnt that preparations were going on in the house of the fourth accused, father of the second accused, to get the first accused married to the second accused. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 took their uncle Subramaniam and also P.Ws. 7 and 8 and went in car to the house of the fourth accused. They protested. But, notwithstanding their protest, the first accused tied a thali around the neck of the second accused. P.W.1 was beaten and was turned out of that house. P.W. 1 also obtained a wound certificate and she sent telegrams to the Inspector-General of Police and other higher police officials at Salem, and later filed a private complaint out of which these appeals arise.

(3.) AGAINST the judgment of the trial Court, the first accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 574 of 1977, before the Sessions Judge, Salem, while accused 2 to 4 preferred C.A. No. 575 of 1977. Both these appeals were heard together by the learned Sessions Judge, who acquitted accused 1 to 4 on the ground that there was no valid marriage between P. W. 1 and accused 1 and also between accused 1 and accused 2. P.W. 1, the complainant, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1978, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge ordering acquittal of accused 1 to 4 and Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1978, against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari, against the acquittal of accused 5 to 26.