RAFI HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgment dated 18.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2005 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.10123 of 2000, this criminal revision petition is focused.

(2.) THE whole kit and caboodle of facts, as revealed from the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) THE police laid police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C as against A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (ii) During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to P.W.10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the defence side, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked and no oral evidence was adduced. Ultimately, the trial court recorded the conviction and imposed the following sentences against A1 and A2: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Sentence Imposed/Fine --------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) 498-A IPC Simple imprisonment for 2 years and a fine Rs.5,000/- each (in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment by each) (ii) Section 4 of Simple imprisonment for 2 years and a Dowry Prohibition fine Rs.5,000/- each (in default to Act undergo 3 months simple imprisonment by each) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (iii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, appeal was filed by A1 and A2 for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the lower court.

(3.) THE points for consideration are as to: (i) Whether in the absence of any evidence satisfying the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, both the courts below found the accused guilty" and (ii) Whether the judgment of both the courts below were perverse due to non application of law in analysing the evidence placed before it"