KANCHANA Vs. SRINIVASAN, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise from the order of acquittal of the respondents in both the revisions by the learned V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C. No. 6/89 and C.C. No. 1/89 for the offences under Sec. 313 read with Sec. 149 and Sec. 143 Indian penal Code and also Sections 498-A and 143 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The complainant in these two cases is the wife of the first respondent/accused. The other accused are her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. She complained to Tiruchirapalli Police that without her consent, all the respondents forcibly caused miscarriage of the child in her womb. On this complaint, S.C. No. 6/89 was initiated. Another complaint was filed by her against the same respondents alleging cruelty and ill-treatment by these respondents. Therefore C.C. No. 1/89 was initiated. As the complainant and the accused are same in both cases, it appears that the complaint for the offences under Sec. 498-A and 143 Indian Penal Code, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, was transferred to the file of the V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The learned Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, who tried these two cases though separately, has acquitted all the accused on common ground in both cases. Therefore, the complainant, who was examined as P.W. 1, has filed these private revisions challenging the acquittal of the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. A Selvan contended that when the order of the Court below is found to be perverse or manifestly illegal, this Court is bound to interfere in the order of the lower Court and in this case, the very approach of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, for his conclusion, exhibits the illegality for the wrong application of the provision of the law and erroneous view contrary to law and as they are patent from the order of the Court below, the same are to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, as a complaint given on 1-4-87 by the petitioner before Madurai Police was referred to as mistake of fact, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge has taken the view that there cannot be any subsequent complaint for the cruelty and harassment subsequent to that complaint and on this wrong notion, he approached the processes of his verdict, which has led to a wrong conclusion that the investigations in these cases are not permissible by the investigating officer.