MADHAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the first accused in C.C.No.15 of 2006, challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2009 made in C.C.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri thereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) and 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner was acquitted for the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On appeal, the appellate Court also confirmed it by judgment dated 24.6.2010 made in C.A.No.17 of 2010.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 09.5.2003, a marriage was solemnized in between the petitioner/ first accused and the defacto complainant, namely, Thilagavathi @ Roothai, according to Christian Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner along with his family members demanded 18 sovereigns of gold, TVS Max 100 two wheeler and other household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry. The first accused and his family members taken away all the articles within a period of six months from the date of marriage. Further, on 28.12.2003, the first accused demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to do the contract business and got the same forcibly from the defacto complainant. Moreover, the first accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant to live with her and thereby caused cruelty to her. The defacto complainant went to the parental home for delivery. On 25.6.2004, a female child was born to her. After delivery, when the defacto complainant, Thilagavathi, went to the house of in -laws, she was prevented by them to enter into the house. Further, she was informed that the petitioner married another woman. Therefore, based on the complaint, a case was registered under Section 498 (A) and 406 and also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.15 of 2006 and after due trial, the trial Court convicted the first accused for the offence under Section 498 (A). The petitioner and other accused have been acquitted by the trial Court from the charges under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Against which, appeal has been preferred and the same was also dismissed.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner, the Courts below having acquitted the petitioner and other accused from the charges under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also having held there was no dowry demand, erred in convicting the petitioner alone for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. According to him, the trial Court had convicted the petitioner alone merely for the reason that the petitioner did not take care of defacto complainant after she gave birth to a child. The appellate Court also did not appreciate the matter properly. According to the revision petitioner, the complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by him against the defacto complainant. Further, there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner committed cruelty as defined under Section 498 -A IPC. Since the witnesses have spoken false hood with regard to dowry demand, they cannot be believed so far the other allegations also. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge for acquitting the accused for the charge sheet under Section 465 read with 471 and 468 IPC and 468 read with 109 IPC are unsustainable in law and lead to grave miscarriage of justice.