IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 29.01.2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Crl.A.No.328 of 2000
Senthilvel .. Appellant
vs.
State by
Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Pondicherry. ..Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
Judgment in C.C.No.245 of 1997 dated 29.2.2000 on the file
of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pondicherry.
For Appellant : Mr.C.P.Palanisamy
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Thangavel
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in
C.C.No.245/1997 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Puducherry.
2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that
seven months prior to 8.7.1997 at Door No.40, Rangapillai
Street, Puducherry, infurthrece of common intention
subjected the complainant Malathi to cruelty by beating,
also demanding a Hero Honda Motor Cycle, cash of Rs.50,000/-
, and a water heater as dowry. A case was registered on
the complaint preferred by P.W.1. The case was taken on
file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in
C.C.No.245/1997 against the A1, husband of the
complainant(P.W.1), and A2, mother-in-law of the
complainant.
3. On appearance of the accused on summons the copies
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused
and charges as indicated above were framed. When questioned
the accused pleaded no guilty. On the side of the
prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10 were marked. No material objects were marked.
4. P.W.1 is the complainant, wife of A1, who would
depose that the marriage between herself and A1 took place
on 10.11.1995 as per the Hindu customs and at the time of
marriage her parents presented 37 sovereign of gold and cash
of Rs.50,000/- and other ‘Sreethana’ properties worth about
Rs.40,000/- and the marriage took place at Puducherry and
after the marriage she was residing along with her husband.
After 15 days of marriage her husband demanded Hero Honda
Motor cycle and this was informed by her to her parents and
her husband had also demanded cash of Rs.50,000/-. But
her(P.w.1) parents have declined to accede to the said
demand. She went to her parent’s house for Pongal and at
that time she was two months of pregnancy. Due to the
impact of travel she developed bleeding which resulted in
abortion of the fetus in hospital. After treatment her
husband returned to his house. A week thereafter she
returned to her husband’s house along with her mother but
she was not permitted to go inside the house but sent out of
the house by her husband accusing that she had aborted the
child without the permission of her husband. Elders
pacified him and after compromise, she was allowed to go
inside the house of the accused and that the 1st accused had
insisted her to give in writing that only out of her
volition she had aborted the child. According to P.W.1,
her husband does not allow her to go out of the house and he
used to keep her under lock and key and there was no proper
food given to her and that she was ill-treated and her
mother-in-law kicked her while she was sleeping and she was
also compelled to give consent in writing for A1’s second
marriage. After coming to know about this, her(P.w.1)
sister came to her house, but her husband did not permit her
to go inside the house. On 29.6.1996 late night the A1 and
his mother were discussing about the second marriage of her
husband and also planed to kill her, on 30.6.1996 she gave
a telegram to her brother Magesh with the help of her
neighbour. Her brother came and asked her husband about
this. Her husband informed Magesh that he wants to live
separately in the house and that she(P.W.1) shall give in
writing that she does not like her husband. But she
refused to give such a letter and then she went along with
her brother to her parent’s house. She went to Women Police
Cell and complained of the cruelty meted out to her at the
hands of her husband. On 8.7.1996 she had preferred a
complaint-Ex.P.1 with the Women Police. Ex.P.2 is marriage
invitation dated 10.11.1995 between P.W.1 and A1. Ex.P.3 is
the letter dated 8.5.1996 written by her to her mother.
Ex.P.4 is dated 11.5.1996 written by her to her mother.
Ex.P.5 is the letter dated 5.6.1996 written by her to her
mother. Ex.P.6 is the letter dated 7.6.1996 written by her
to her brother. Ex.P.7 is the letter dated 14.6.1996
written by her to her brother. Ex.P.8 is the letter written
by her to her mother.
5. P.W.2 is the mother of the complainant. P.W.2 has
deposed to the effect that her husband is working in
Malaysia and that the marriage between A1 and the
complainant(P.W.1) was solemnized through friends like
Balasubraminan and Gandhimohan and that after the
solemnization of the marriage her daughter P.W.1 and A1 were
living happily for ten or fifteen days. Thereafter both A1
& A2 used to comment upon the mode of service rendered by
the complainant and scolded her like anything and that she
had visited her daughter’s house only thrice and that she
stayed only for a duration of two hours each and during that
time P.W.1 used to complain about the treatment she had
received at the hands of the accused and that as requested
by P.W.1, she(P.W.2) had also informed this to the senior
paternal uncle of A1 and that the accused used to keep her
daughter under lock and key and A1 never allowed her to go
to purchase milk. On one occasion one of the sisters of
P.w.1 was also not allowed to see P.W.1 and that P.W.1 has
informed her that the accused were demanding fan and other
items. P.W.1 informed that she is not feeling well and
hence she was taken to a doctor. She went along with her
daughter(P.W.1) to Puducherry for Thaippoosam. When they
returned to the house of the accused, they were not allowed
to go inside the house. The daughter of A1’s sister came
and opened the gate after a long time and on seeing P.W.1
and her mother P.W.2, the accused abused them and the said
matter was reported to Nattamai at Thittai Village. The
accused 1 and 2 compelled P.W.1 to write a letter of release
to enable A1 to marry for the second time. The said demand
was refuted by her and her daughter(P.w.1). A2 kicked P.W.1
and also teased her. P.W.1 also gave a telegram to Thittai,
which was received by her(P.W.2) son. The son of P.W.2 also
went to Puducherry and witnessed the ill-treatment meeted
out by P.W.1 at the hands of A1.
6. P.W.3 is the elder sister of P.W.1. P.W.3 would
depose that P.W.1 and A1 lived together happily for about
15 days after the marriage and in that 15 days P.W.1 and her
husband A1 visited her(P.W.3) house three times. Both
P.W.1 and her mother came to Puducherry for Thaippoosam and
also informed about the ill-treatment metted out to P.W.1 at
the hands of her husband and that she also informed the
person who solemnized the marriage and also she visited
P.W.1’s house with her father and since P.W.1 was very weak,
she made a request to A1 and mother of A1 to allow her to
take P.W.1 to her house. But they refused to allow P.W.1
along with her and that during the month of Margazhi, P.W.1
was brought by A1 and A2 and others to Thittai for “Thali
prithu kattuthal function” and at that time P.W.1 has
informed that the accused were demanding one Hero Honda
motor cycle, a water heater and cash of Rs.50,000/- But the
accused were pacified and were sent back to Puducherry.
During her(P.w.3) visit to the house of the accused, P.w.1
was found inside the house under lock and key and she stood
at the entrence of the house and spoken to with P.w.1 and
returned back and that P.w.1 also informed her that
her(P.w.1) dress materials were kept by A1 under lock and
key and that P.W.1 was sleeping along with the mother of the
accused and the accused was sleeping in the first floor and
that the accused were responsible for abortion which took
place to P.W.1. She has further deposed that P.W.1 has
also informed about the cruel treatment of A2. She also
speaks about the frequent quarrel between P.W.1 and the
accused.
7. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 also speaks
about the marriage between P.W.1 and A1 and also about the
presentation given to P.W.1 at the time of marriage and that
P.w.1 had written a letter Ex.P.3 stating that A1 had beat
her, demanding Hero Honda Motor Cycle and on one occasion
while he visited the house of P.W.1, A1 has necked him out
of the house and that he also speaks about the cruel
attitude of A1 towards P.W.1.
8. P.W.5 is a neighbour of P.W.1. P.W.5 deposed to the
effect that P.W.1 used to complaint about her husband and
that P.W.1 informed her about the torture received at the
hands of the accused and also about the demand of dowry.
9. P.W.6 is the mahazar witness, who would depose that
Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8 were seized on 25.7.1996 by the police from
the house of Magesh and that Ex.P.9 is seizure mahazar in
which he has signed as a witness.
10. P.W.7 is the Inspector of Police of Women Police
Station. She would state that P.W.1 came to the station on
8.7.1996 at about 11.15 hours and preferred a complaint for
demanding dowry by her husband and her mother-in-law to the
tune of Rs.50,000/- cash and a water heater and also a Hero
Honda motor cycle and on the basis of the complaint she
registered a case in Cr.No.3/1996 under Section 498(1)A IPC
and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 r/w 34
IPC. Ex.P.10 is the FIR. She has examined the witnesses
and visited the place of occurrence and seized Ex.P.2 to
Ex.P.8 letters and seizure mahazar is Ex.P.9. P.W.8 is the
successor of P.w.7, who had taken up further investigation
and after completing the investigation, she has filed charge
sheet against the accused.
11. When incriminating circumstances were put to the
accused, they denied their complicity with the crime. On
the side of the accused D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D12 were marked. After going through the oral
and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court, the
learned trial Judge has held that A2 is not guilty under the
charge levelled against her and consequently acquitted A2,
but convicted A1 under Section 498 A IPC and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment till raising of the court and a fine
of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the
findings of the learned trial Judge, A1 has preferred this
appeal.
12. Now the point for determination in this appeal is
whether the conviction and sentence under Section 498 A IPC
against A1 is sustainable?
13.The Point:- Section 498 A IPC runs as follows:-
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a women, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand.”
The allegation against A12 by her wife P.W.1 is that A1
often harassed her to give cash of Rs.50,000/- and also a
Hero Honda motor cycle and a water heater. Even though
P.W.2 to P.W.4 are relatives of P.W.1, P.W.5 is a neighbor
who is not a relation of P.W.1. P.W.5 has deposed to the
effect that only at the instance of P.W.1 she gave a
telegram to the brother of P.W.1 stating that A1 had
intimidated P.W.1 to kill and there is no safety for her
life. P.W.5 has categorically stated that P.W.1 has
informed her about the way in which A1 has treated P.W.1 so
cruelly and also demanding a motor cycle and money towards
dowry. There is no motive attributed upon P.W.5 to depose
falsehood against A1. The evidence of P.W.1 has been
corroborated by P.W.2 to P.W.5. Only under such
circumstances, the learned trial Judge has come to a
conclusion that an offence under Section 498 A IPC has been
proved against A1. But the learned trial Judge has taken a
lenient view while awarding sentence to A1. The learned
trial judge has given punishment of imprisonment till the
raising of the Court and also a fine of Rs.15,000/- with a
direction that if the fine amount is paid, the same shall be
given to P.W.1 towards compensation under Section 357(1) of
Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well
considered judgment of the trial Court, which does not
warrant any interference from this Court. Point is answered
accordingly.
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming
the decree and judgment in C.C.No.245/1997 on the file of
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
ssv
To,
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Puducherry.