JANNATH MARY ANITHA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Case is against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, made in Crl.A.No. 148 of 2009, dated 11.07.2014, reversing the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore, in C.C. No. 42 of 2007, dated 14.10.2009.

(2.) THE marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent/first accused was solemnised as per Christian Rites and Rituals at Kattoor on 24.04.1996. Pursuant to the marriage, the first accused and petitioner along with accused Nos. 2 to 4 lived jointly at Velandipalayam, Coimbatore. It is alleged that the first accused ill -treated the petitioner and demanded dowry of Rs.15,00,000/ - for starting an Industry. The accused are alleged to have forced the petitioner to sign in white and bond papers. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was pregnant, the accused have administered pudding against her will, which resulted in termination of her pregnancy on 21.10.1996. Subsequently, a Panchayat was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner and the first accused lived under one roof at Chennai. On 17.10.1998, a female child was born to the first accused and the petitioner. Again the first accused started ill -treating the petitioner and asked her to bring a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ - for starting the Industry. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner/de facto complainant. On receipt of complaint, a case was registered and a final report was filed under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint was taken on file in C.C. No. 42 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 14.10.2009, convicted and sentenced the first accused to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default , to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,00/ -, in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the first accused was imposed with a fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.5,00/ -, in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.500/ -, in default, to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against the same, accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Crl.A.No. 148 of 2009 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by judgment dated 11.07.2014 acquitted all the accused, thereby, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/de facto complainant has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) MR .A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the first accused took place as early as on 24.04.1996. He would further point out that even though, it is alleged that the complaint was given in the year 2001, but, the same was registered only in the year 2007, i.e., beyond the period of seven years from the date of the marriage. He would further bring to the notice of this Court that the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the very theory put forward by the petitioner that the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - was withdrawn from the Bank at knife point and has ultimately rightly held that it cannot be accepted, because, there is a clear admission that the withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount was made in the presence of Manager and other witnesses and if really the withdrawal has taken place at knife point in the presence of Bank Manager, he would not have permitted to withdraw the fixed deposit amount. He would further submit that the demand of dowry or harassment meted out to the petitioner has not been proved by any independent evidence except the bald statement of P.Ws. 1 to 3. He would further submit that there is hardly any evidence to prove the alleged offences against the accused and there is no material on record to support the conclusion of cruelty or harassment and therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3.