This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal made in C.C.No.58 of 2007, dated 02.09.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Srivilliputtur.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage was solemnized on 10.01.2005 between the de-facto complainant and and the 1st accused and after marriage, the 1st accused joined in CRPF and after returning from CRPF, the 1st accused had not turned up to see the de-facto complainant and when the de-facto complainant went to see the 1st accused, the 1st accused stated that he is not willing to live with her and also A1 to A3 harassed the de- facto complainant by demanding money. The Inspector of Police attached to All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur, has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.
3.In the trial court, 9 witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. The trial court acquitted all the accused from the charges levelled against them. Against the order of acquittal, the present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them and that the de-facto complainant has categorically stated that her mother-in-law has told her that unless she brings Rs. 50,000/- in cash and 10 sovereigns of gold, she should not think of living with her son as his wife and that trial court has acquitted the accused on presumption that since the father and mother of the A1 had not attended the marriage, there is no chance of demanding dowry and the trial Court failed to consider the fact that after the marriage, the de-facto complainant has lived with her husband in her father's house will clearly prove that A2 and A3 had not allowed her inside the house, demanding the dowry and that the trial court before acquitting the accused ought to have taken into consideration, the stage of HMOP filed by A1, because HMOP No. 129 of 2006 was dismissed on 24.06.2008. In view of the above reasons given by the trial Judge in acquitting the accused are against the evidence, both oral and documentary available on record and hence, the criminal revision has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 4th respondent/State argued that http://www.judis.nic.in 4 there was no procedural illegality or manifest error of law in the judgment of the trial court and the trial court passing that order had not overlooked the evidence clinching the issue and the trial court only after analysing the entire evidence and document, acquitted the accused and prays that the criminal revision has to be dismissed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.The contention raised on the side of the petitioner/ de- facto complainant is that the de-facto complainant categorically stated during her evidence that her mother-in-law told her that unless, she brings Rs.50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold, she should not think of living with her son as his wife and further, the de-facto complainant deposed that her husband, mother-in-law and father- in-law have sent her out from the matrimonial home demanding Rs.50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold and after the marriage, the de-facto complainant has lived with her husband in her father's house will clearly prove that the second and third respondents have not allowed her inside the house by way of demanding dowry. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Further, the de-facto complainant deposed that the 1st accused on hearing the ill advise of his parents has stated that unless she brings the dowry amount and gold, she cannot live with him and A1 with a mala-fide intention of cheating the de facto complainant and in order to go for second marriage has filed the petition for divorce and after A1 got the job, he started to act according to the whims and fancies of his mother and the father and the father and the mother of the de-facto complainant categorically stated during their evidence that the accused demanded dowry, but without considering the above evidence, the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the demand of dowry by the accused was not proved and acquitted the accused and prays that the Criminal Revision Case has to be allowed.
8.On the other hand, it is argued on the side of the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 that A1 and the de-facto complainant loved each other and the parents of A1 have not attended the marriage and hence, there is no question of demanding dowry at the time of marriage and after the marriage, A1 and the de-facto complainant lived in the house of the de-facto complainant and after, A1 got the job, he left his wife in the house of his parents and http://www.judis.nic.in 6 they never demanded dowry from the de-facto complainant and only due to the conduct of the de-facto complainant, A1 filed a petition for divorce and in order to defeat the above petition for divorce, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against the accused falsely and there was no dowry demand by the accused and hence, the trial Court acquitted the accused and there was no error or mistake in the judgment of the trial court and prays that the Criminal Revision has to be dismissed.
9.In this case, PW1 is the complainant and the wife of A1. PW1 stated in her complaint and evidence stated that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 50,000/-, but her father only gave 3 sovereigns and Rs.10,000/- as cash.
10.PW2 is the mother of PW1. PW3 is the brother of the PW1. PW7 is the father of PW1. PW2, PW3 and PW7 deposed that at that time of marriage t,he accused demanded 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/-, but they gave only 3 sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- as cash.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
11.In this case, it is stated on the side of the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 that the marriage between A1 and the de-facto complainant is a love marriage and the parents of A1 have not attended the marriage. PW1 during her cross examination admitted that at the time of marriage, A2 and A3 attended the marriage. But PW2 during his chief examination stated that due to love affairs of A1 and PW1, they asked the parents of A1 to marry the de-facto complainant, but, A2 and A3 refused. During his cross examination PW2 stated as follows: -
'ehDk; vjphpfSk; cwtpdh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. vq;fs; Chpy; nghJthf jpUkzj;jpw;F Kd;G ghprk; NghLtJ tof;fk; vd;why; rhpjhd;. vdJ kfs; fhjy; jpUkzk; vd;gjhy; ghprk; vJTk; Nghltpy;iy. jpUkzj;jpw;F vjphpapd; ngw;Nwhh;fs; xj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy. cwtpdh;fshf ,Ue;Jk; $l Ngr;R thh;j;ijf;F xj;Jtutpy;iy. jpUkzj;jpw;F rk;kjpf;fTk; ,y;iy. jpUkzj;jpw;F Kd;G 1-k; vjphp Ntiyapy;yhky; ,Ue;jhh;.
“ma;adhh; vd;gth; 1-k; vjphp jha;khkh vd;why; rhpjhd;. jhyp fl;Lk; ,lj;jpw;F 2> 3 vjphpfs; tutpy;iy.
“1-k; vjphp Nrh;e;J thohjjhy;jhd; gpur;rpid. mjd; fhuzkhf jhd; tof;F gjpT nra;Js;Nshk;. 1-k; vjphp vdJ kfSld;
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 thokhl;Nld; vd;gjw;fhf tujl;riz Nfl;L vjphp Jd;GWj;jpajw;fhfTk;> vdJ kUkfd;; vd; kfSld;
thohj fhuzj;jpdhy; tujl;riz tof;F Nghl;Ls;Nshk; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
12.PW3 during his cross examination stated as follows:-
'1-k; vjphp gzpf;F nrd;W jpUk;gp te;J vd; jq;ifAld; tho kWf;fpwhh;. Nrh;j;J itf;f nrhy;ypjhd; ,e;j kD jhf;fy; nra;Js;Nshk;. vdJ jq;ifia vg;gbahtJ 1-k; vjphpNahL Nrh;j;J thoitf;fNtz;Lk; vd fhty;epiyaj;jpy; nrhd;Ndhk;.
13.PW7 during his cross examination stated as follows:-
'vdJ kUkfd; vd; kfSld; thokhl;Nld;
vd nrhd;djhy; jhd; tof;F njhLj;Js;Nsd; vd;why; tujl;rizf;F Mirg;gl;L ,e;j tof;F nfhLj;Js;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
14.PW3 and PW4 are the persons and in their presence the marriage was solemnized. PW4 deposed that at the time of marriage, it was decided that Rs.50,000/- cash and 10 sovereigns of jewels were given to PW1. But at the time of marriage, only gave 3 sovereigns of jewels and 10,000/- as cash. The parents of PW1 promised to give the balance of cash and jewels to PW1. Since the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 parents of PW1 have not given the balance amount of cash to PW1, dispute arose between PW1 and A1 to A3 and due to it, PW1 came to her parents house and the parents of PW1 requested him to settled the matter, but PW1 gave a complaint. PW4 also during his cross examination admitted that A1 to A3 have not attended the marriage. Further PW4 during her cross examination stated as follows:-
'vjphpfs; tujl;riz Nfl;L m.rh.1 ia tPl;il tpl;L tpul;bAk; mjd; gpd;G m.rh.1 Gfhh; nfhLj;j tptuk; njhpahJ. nre;jpy;Fkhh; tptfhuj;J tof;F jhf;fy; nra;jpUe;jhh; vd;why; njhpahJ. 1-k; vjphp tptfhuj;J tof;F jhf;fy; nra;j gpwF mij Kwpabf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhf ngha;ahf tujl;riz Nfl;ljhf tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; njhpahJ”.
15.PW4 has not stated that he has taken steps to settled the dispute between PW1 and A1 to A3. PW1 to PW3 and PW7 have not stated that at the time of marriage, it was decided to give 10 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.50,000/- cash to A1 and only at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 gave only 3 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.10,000/- as cash and promised to pay the balance in future. Further, PW4 has not stated that the parents of A1 have demanded the balance cash and sovereigns of jewels from PW1. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
16.PW5 was cited as witness to speak about the mediation taken between the family of PW1 and the family of the accused. PW5 deposed that after marriage, A1 got job and demanded dowry from PW1 and when she went to the house of A1, he came to understand that PW1 was driven by the accused and she came to the house of her parents and when the accused refused to live with her, PW1 gave complaint against the accused. PW5 has not stated that due to the demand of dowry, PW1 gave the complaint.
17.On careful perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW7, it reveals that A1 refused to live with PW1 and she gave a complaint and there was no evidence for demand of dowry by the accused. Further, there was contradiction in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW7. At first, PW1 gave a complaint before the police and both PW1 and A1 were enquired and they have stated that they seek remedy through Court of law.
18.It is to be noted that PW1 gave the complaint only after A1 filed a petition for divorce as against her. In this case, PW2 to PW4 and PW7 stated that A2 and A3 have not attended the marriage held between the petitioner and A1. Hence, the evidence http://www.judis.nic.in 11 of PW1 stating that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry is not at all acceptable. Further, PW2 to PW4 and PW7 categorically admitted during their cross examination that when A1 refused to live with PW1, PW1 gave complaint as against the accused. Hence, there was no evidence for demand of dowry. The trial Court rightly come to the conclusion that the offence under
Section 498(A) IPC is not made out. Hence, this court is of the considered view that it is not necessary to interfere into the findings given by the trial Court.
19.At this juncture, it is more relevant to refer the decision reported in (2002) 9 SCC 393 [Thankappan Nadar and others vs. Gopala Krishnan and another), the Hon'ble Apex court has held as follows:-
“6.In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the Court's jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 crpc is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to a few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram 1973 2 SCC 583 this Court has (in SCC pp. 587-88, para 8) observed thus:
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 “This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicating the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision:
(i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused;
(ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;
(iii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible;
(iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and
(v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13 These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” The Court further observed: (SCC p. 588, para 10) “10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court.” (emphasis added) http://www.judis.nic.in 14
7.In our view, the emphasised portion of the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the present case. It is unfortunate that such a serious offence inspired by rivalry in the matter of election should go unpunished. However, that would not be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court, which does not empower the Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence.
8.In Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh 1998 7 SCC 223 this Court after considering various decisions, observed as under: (SCC pp. 226-27, para 9) “9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under
section 401 of the code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the http://www.judis.nic.in 15 case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. sub-section (3) of
section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial.”
20.On coming to the instant case on hand, there was no procedural illegality or manifest error in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the findings of the trial court. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the above decision and also the facts of this case, this http://www.judis.nic.in 16 court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the trial court do not call for any interference by this court.
21.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is dismissed.
04.07.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er http://www.judis.nic.in 17 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.705 of 2009 04.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 18 http://www.judis.nic.in