Home > 498A Judgements > Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under 498A/406 IPC-Chennai HC

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under 498A/406 IPC-Chennai HC

Dated : 07.09.2010

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1468 of 2004

Karthikeyan … Petitioner

-Vs.-

The State represented by

Inspector of Police,

W-2, All Women Police Station,

Adayar, Chennai. … Respondent

Revision against the judgment dated 17.11.2003 made in C.C.No.3378 of 1996 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and confirmed in Crl.A.No.411 of 2003 dated 19.08.2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai. For Petitioner : M/s. E.Kannadasan

For Respondent: Mr. A.Saravanan

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

——-

J U D G M E N T

The Revision Petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.3378 of 1996 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, was convicted for offences under sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year the offence under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the said sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.V, Chennai, in Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2003. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Case.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Revision Petitioner, who is the first accused, is the husband of PW.1. The second accused is the mother-in-law, who died pending trial. The third and fourth accused are sisters of the first accused, who were acquitted by the trial court. The marriage of the first accused and PW.1 was performed on 11.06.1993. At the time of marriage, she was given 30 sovereigns gold jewels and other silver articles and one pair of diamond stud. The house hold articles were also given as Sridhana properties. The first accused and PW.1 were living along with mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-laws as joint family. PW.1 became pregnant. Her husband demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The first accused brought PW.1 from Bangalore to Chennai. The first accused demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, but the brother of PW.1 had informed that he had no money. The first accused left PW.1 in her brother’s house informing that she could come to matrimonial home only on bringing jewels. On 10.01.1994, the first accused again came to Chennai and insisted for cash and jewels. On 19.05.1994 PW.1 delivered a female child. At that time, the first accused along with his sisters came to see the child. He again demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As the amount was not given by the brother of PW.1, quarrel arose among the accused and the brother of PW.1. PW.2, who is the brother of PW.1, made attempts for PW.1 to join her husband. But the mother-in-law of PW.1 and others refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. After some time, PW.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 to the police. PW.7 Inspector of Police on receiving the complaint registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1996 and prepared First Information Report Ex.P5. He recorded the statement of witnesses. He arrested the accused and sent them for remand. She recovered the jewels from the accused. M.O.1 to M.O.12 are the articles recovered by the police. As PW.7 was transferred, PW.8, Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after completion of investigation laid final report against the accused.

3. The accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding incriminating materials and they denied their complexity.

4. The first accused examined himself as DW.1 and he deposed that he and PW.1 lived together for only 71 days and he also received notices Exs.D1 and D2 from PW.1. He also sent the reply Ex.D6. He had further stated that he filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court and divorce was granted to him and he also filed a copy of the judgment Ex.D9.

5. After analysing the evidence, both the Courts below have convicted and sentenced the 1st accused alone as already stated above. The courts below acquitted 3rd and 4th accused. The 2nd accused already died.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner did not make any demand of dowry and even after the marriage, he did not make any demand of money and PW.1 given a false statement about the demand of money by the accused and PW.1 wanted to have a separate house, as it was denied, she refused to live in the matrimonial home. All the jewels had also been taken by PW.1 and all the articles were returned to PW.1. The learned counsel further submitted that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration the grounds on which the divorce was granted to the petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that PW.1 had specifically stated about the demand of the amount made by the first accused / Revision Petitioner and her evidence was also corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that the accused did not return the articles and it was only the police, after registration of the case, during investigation seized the articles and they are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.12 before the trial Court.

8. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records.

9. According to the evidence of PW.1, after the marriage, the Revision Petitioner and PW.1. and other family members of the Revision Petitioner were all living together in Bangalore. The first accused often made demand for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/-. The brother of PW.1 did not make any payment as demanded by the accused. PW.1 was left in her brother’s house as the amount was not paid as demanded by the accused. Even after PW.1 delivering a female child on 19.05.1994, the accused were not prepared to take her to matrimonial home. Even as per Ex.D1 marked through DW.1, a notice sent by PW.1 through her lawyer, a request was made to arrange for a peaceful living and an offer was also made that PW.1 with her child would join her husband. Inspite of Ex.D1, the accused did not take any steps to take her back. Therefore, subsequently another notice was sent by PW.1 on 14.08.1995, which is marked as Ex.D2. The accused also sent his reply Ex.D6. Thereafter, the accused had filed divorce petition against PW.1 before the Family Court. The attitude of the Revision Petitioner was very adamant. He had caused harassment to his wife. Though divorce had been granted by the Family Court, it is not a ground for acquittal of the Revision Petitioner. Though it is contended by the Revision Petitioner that PW.1 insisted for a separate house, the accused while examined himself as DW.1 had not specifically stated that PW.1 insisted for separate house. Even if she insisted for separate house, there was nothing wrong in it. PW.1 was ill-treated by her in-laws. It is the duty of the husband to see his wife being not ill-treated by any one of his family members. This Court concludes that the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the Revision Petitioner are made out.

10. Even after notice, the first accused had not returned the articles of PW.1 to her and it was only the police, who seized those articles. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 406 of IPC are also made out against the Revision Petitioner.

11. As per the evidence, it is not the case of the prosecution that the first accused demanded any dowry for performing the marriage. The jewels and articles were given as Sridhana properties. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are set aside.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency regarding punishment imposed on the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Revision Petitioner for offences under sections 498-A and 406 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months, instead an additional fine of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The fine amount already paid by the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is to be returned to him shall be adjusted towards the additional fine amount now imposed by this Court.

14. The Revision Petition is partly allowed. The trial Court shall take steps to remand the petitioner to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.

mra

To

1. The Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai.

2. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai.

3. Inspector of Police,

W-2, All Women Police Station,

Adayar,

Chennai

Advertisements
Categories: 498A Judgements
  1. September 22, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    “Even if she insisted for separate house, there was nothing wrong in it. PW.1 was ill-treated by her in-laws. It is the duty of the husband to see his wife being not ill-treated by any one of his family members. This Court concludes that the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the Revision Petitioner are made out.”

    WOW what a GRAVE offense to make out the ingredients of 498a!!! See this idiot’s picture here http://ctconline.in/judges.htm

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: