High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
S.Krishnaveni v. State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police,2.Sathyamoorth - Criminal Revision Petition No.799 of 2005  RD-TN 238 (20 January 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20/01/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN
Criminal Revision Petition No.799 of 2005
S.Krishnaveni .. Petitioner Vs
1.State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
2.Sathyamoorthy .. Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of C.R.P.C. for enhancing the punishment awarded to accused-1 in C.C.No.436 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy dated 10.3.2004. For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sankar Ganesh For 1st Respondent : Mr.Siva Iyyappan Addl.Public Prosecutor For 2nd respondent : No appearance
:O R D E R
The Revision Petition is filed for enhancing the punishment imposed by the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy in C.C.No.436 of 2000, 10.3.2004, convicting the first accused under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for one month simple imprisonment. The learned Judge acquitted the second accused from the charges levelled against him.
2.The case of the petitioner herein is briefly as follows: (a)Krishnaveni-P.W.1 married the first accused on 10.6.1992 and P.Ws 2 and 3 are the sister and brother of P.W.1, the petitioner herein. It is stated that the first accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as dowry from P.W.1 in the year 2000 and that he had immoral relationship with the second accused and ill treated the petitioner. It is also stated that the first accused snatched away the credit card of the petitioner and since the petitioner herein is the Government servant, he forced her to obtain loan from the Office. b)P.W.4- was the Inspector of All Women Police Station, Srirangam. She received a complaint from the Revision Petitioner and investigated the case in C.C.No.21 of 2000 and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 377 IPC read with Dorwy Prohibition Act. c)Before the trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined, filed Ex.P1 and P2 were marked and on the side of accused Exs. D1 and D2 were also marked.
d)On consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, convicted the first accused under Section 498 A IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the second accused from the charges levelled against him.
e)Challenging the above said Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, the Revision has been filed by the wife of the first accused.
3.Point for determination: Whether the sentence can be enhanced as claimed by the Revision Petitioner herein ?
POINT:(a)As stated above, the marriage of the Revision Petitioner and the first accused was solemnised on 10.6.1992 at Tirupathi and at the time of marriage, both of them have crossed the middle age. According to the Revision Petitioner/P.W.1, her husband/first accused ill-treated from the year 2000 onwards and she was forced to obtain loan from the Office and her Credit Card was also snatched awat by the first accused. Though she claims that her husband/accused No.1 had immoral relationship with the second accused, the said contention was rejected by the trial Judge and no appeal was also filed raising that ground. Therefore, this Court is concerned only as against the Judgment of conviction in respect of the first accused under section 498-A IPC only and also the sentence imposed on him.
b)The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently contended that the first accused treated her cruelly and caused great mental strain and sufferings to the Revision Petitioner and considering the magnitude of the crime committed by the first accused/husband of the Revision Petitioner, he must undergo the complete term of sentence and that the Judgment of the trial Court sentencing him to undergo three months is not adequate. c)On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Judge has given adequate reasons for imposing the sentence of three months. He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the bye-pass surgery undergone by the first accused and also after perusing the entire records before him and also the age of the first accused, imposed the lesser punishment. In paragraph 11 of the Judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate had also given the reason for imposing the lesser sentence.
4.Now we have to consider whether the sentence imposed by the trial Court is adequate or not ?
It is seen that the Revision Petitioner is aged about 55 years and her husband/first accused is aged about 59 years. Further, the first accused had undergone bye-pass surgery and he was also convicted in another case and was also sentenced to undergo two months imprisonment. The learned trial Judge considered the health condition and the age of the first accused and came to the conclusion that the imposition of sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment was sufficient.
5.Since, the learned Judicial Magistrate has given the cogent and acceptable reasons for imposing the lesser sentence, and since the first accused/wife of the Revision Petitioner was aged about 59 years, I find no reason to enhance the punishment as claimed by the Revision Petitioner. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed.
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.