IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2009 Anitha .. Petitioner/PW1 Vs. 1. State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. 2. Sangameswaran 3. P.Subramaniam 4. Lakshmi .. Respondents/Complainant and Accused 1 to 3 Criminal Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.1.2009 in C.C.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam. For petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For respondents : Ms.MF.Shabana and Mr.C.Emalias, Govt. Advocates (Criminal Side) for R-1 R-2 served No appearance for RR-3 & 4 ORDER The Crl.R.C. is filed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam in C.C.No.151 of 2004, acquitting the second respondent/A1 from the charges under Sections 495, 498-A, 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and third and fourth respondents/A2 and A3 from the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the order of acquittal, P.W.1, the wife of A-1 has preferred this Crl.R.C. 2. The skeleton of the prosecution is as follows: The second respondent/A1 Sangameswaran is the son of the third respondent/A2 Subramaniam and fourth respondent/A3 Lakshmi. The second respondent/A1 got married to the revision petitioner/P.W.1 through the Marriage Centre run by P.W.8 where P.W.7 is a marriage broker. The marriage between the revision petitioner/P.W.1 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent/A1 was arranged and the marriage was performed on 15.1.2003 at Guruvayoor Temple. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1; P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1; P.W.4 is the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, i.e. husband of P.W.4. P.W.6 is the friend of P.W.3. After marriage, P.W.1 went to her matrimonial home. Admittedly, at the time of marriage, P.W.1 was given only 2 sovereigns of gold, i.e. 1-1/2 sovereigns of chain and ½ sovereign of ear-ring and after marriage, since P.W.1 did not bring gold articles and other things, she was ill-treated and she left the matrimonial home and then only, she came to know that the second respondent/A1 already got married to P.W.14 Suganthi and her parents are P.Ws.12 and 13. To prove the marriage between P.W.14 Suganthi and the second respondent/A1, P.W.9 was examined. A separate family was put up in the house of P.W.10. Since the second respondent/A1 ill-treated P.W.1 and made criminal intimidation and threatened her to commit murder by pouring kerosene, she left her matrimonial home and stayed at her parents' house. P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P-1, which has been received by Coimbatore All Women Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.588 of 2003 by P.W.18 Inspector of Police for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After examining the witnesses, P.W.18 Inspector of Police sent the complaint to Gobichettipalaya Police Station after giving Ex.P-8 requisition to the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore for transmitting the FIR and on that basis, the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the letter Ex.P-9 along with the FIR. P.W.17 Head Constable received the FIR from Erode Deputy Superintendent of Police and registered the transmitted FIR in Cr.No.480 of 2003 and prepared the FIR Ex.P-6. The Memo of the Superintendent of Police, Erode, is marked as Ex.P-5. P.W.19 took up the case for investigation and examined the witnesses and concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 495, 498-A, 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedures, examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 and 2 and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them, as stated above, against which, the present Crl.R.C. is preferred by P.W.1. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/P.W.1 submitted that Ex.P-10 marriage invitation and M.Os.1 and 2 proved that the second respondent/A1 got married to P.W.14 and this factum has not been considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly proved the harassment meted out to P.W.1 and so, the trial Court has not considered this aspect in proper perspective and prayed for setting aside the order of acquittal and prayed for re-trial. 5. On the side of the respondents 2 to 4, even though time was granted, none appeared on behalf of them. Heard the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocates (Crl. Side) for the first respondent. 6. Now, this Court has to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 19 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 and 2. First of all, this Court has to consider as to whether the ingredients of Section 495 IPC have been made out. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate Section 495 IPC, as follows: "Section 495 IPC: Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted: Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 7. Admittedly, the vital document is the marriage application form Ex.P-3, in which it is specifically mentioned that the first marriage was between the second respondent/A-1 and one Suganthi and so, the second respondent/A1 while filing the Form 2 (in Ex.P-3 application form), has specifically mentioned that he has already got married and his wife's name is Suganthi and he was a divorcee and so, considering the document Ex.P-3 along with the evidence of P.W.1, it is clearly proved that before her marriage with the second respondent/A1, she has an averment in the form that he got married to the said Suganthi and subsequently, they were not living together. Furthermore, P.W.14 Suganthi was examined and her parents are P.Ws.12 and 13. P.Ws.12 to 14 turned hostile. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent/A1 has disclosed the factum of his earlier marriage with the said Suganthi and only after disclosing the factum of earlier marriage, he married P.W.1 and so, the ingredients of Section 495 IPC regarding concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted, have not been made out. The trial Court considered this aspect in paragraph 7 of its judgment and discussed the same in detail and came to the correct conclusion that the offence of Section 495 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution. 8. Now, it is appropriate to consider Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as follows: "Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry — If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months." 9. In respect of the demand of dowry, i.e. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the candid admission of P.Ws.1 to 4 is that there is no demand of dowry on the date of marriage. They also fairly conceded that at the time of marriage, P.W.1 was given 2 sovereigns of jewels, i.e. 1-1/2 sovereigns of gold chain and ½ sovereign of gold ear ring and except that, they have not given anything. Admittedly, the marriage has been performed on 15.1.2003 and P.W.1 left the matrimonial home within six months and the complaint was given. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there was no demand of dowry. Admittedly, they have also stated that after marriage, P.W.1 has not given any complaint for demand of dowry. In such circumstances, in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment of acquittal, the trial Court considered this aspect in detail and came to the correct conclusion that there was no demand of dowry and hence, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has not been proved by the prosecution. 10. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Section 498-A IPC, which reads as follows: "Section 498-A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, 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 wilful 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." 11. Except the ipse-dixit of P.W.1, no other independent witness was examined. P.W.2 is none other than the mother of P.W.1; P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1; P.W.4 is the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, i.e. husband of P.W.4. P.Ws.10, 11, 15 and 16 who are independent witnesses, have not deposed anything about the cruelty meted out to P.W.1. Admittedly, P.W.1 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent/A1 were tenant under P.W.10. He has not stated anything in respect of the cruelty. In such circumstances, except the ipse-dixit of P.W.1, there is no evidence to show that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the second respondent/A1 and the third and fourth respondents/A2 and A3, the parents of the second respondent/A1, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of P.W.1. In such circumstances, the trial Court, in the impugned judgment of acquittal has discussed in detail and came to the correct conclusion that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not made out, as the prosecution has not proved the same beyond reasonable doubt against A1 to A3. 12. In respect of Section 506 (Part 2) IPC, as already stated, except the ipse-dixit of P.W.1, no other independent witness has been examined. As per the evidence, on 7.5.2003, A1 threatened P.W.1 and made criminal intimidation that he will pour kerosene and set fire to her and the complaint was given only on 19.6.2003 and the trial Court has considered this aspect in paragraph 10 of its judgment and came to the correct conclusion. 13. So, on a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 19 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 and 2, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved that the second respondent/A1 is guilty of the offences under Sections 495, 498-A and 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the third and fourth respondents/A2 and A3 is guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 14. Considering the materials available on record and the arguments advanced on either side, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective by evaluating the oral and documentary evidence and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, I am forced to concur with the findings of the trial Court. 15. The Crl.R.C. is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar cs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam. 2.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. 3. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2009 ck(co) pmk.27.6.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/