SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court No.I), Cuddalore at Chidambaram dated 17.10.2005 made in Criminal Appeal No.40/2005 confirming the judgment of conviction pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram in C.C.No.54/2004 dated 29.03.2005 and the punishment imposed thereon.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case are as follows:- Based on the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.3/2004 on the file of All Women Police Station, Chidambaram against the petitioner herein for an alleged offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. THE Inspector of Police of the said Police Station, after investigation, submitted a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram alleging that the petitioner herein had committed offences punishable under Sections 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and praying that he should be prosecuted and punished for the said offences. THE same was taken on file as C.C.No.54/2004 by the said Magistrate. Necessary charges were framed and the petitioner herein (accused in the said C.C.No.54/2004) pleaded not guilty. He was tried for the said offences in which 10 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.10) were examined and four documents (Ex.P1 to P4) were marked on the side of the prosecution. After completion of prosecution evidence, the petitioner herein/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. He denied them as false and reiterated his stand that he was not guilty. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the Revision Petitioner herein/accused. THE learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram, upon an appreciation of evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate found him not guilty of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted him of the said charge. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and convicted him for the said offence. After questioning the Revision Petitioner/accused regarding sentence under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, but no fine was imposed.

(3.) THE accused in C.C.No.54/2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram who was prosecuted for alleged offences punishable under Section 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted for the offence of dowry demand punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case after unsuccessfully challenging the same before the lower appellate court namely, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, Cuddalore at Chidambaram in C.A.No.40 of 2005.