//
you're reading...
legal issues

whether the fact that the decree of divorce was set aside and the marriage between A1 and the complainant was revived was known to A3, A4 and A5. Merely because A3 is the sister of A1, it cannot be presumed that she knew that the decree of divorce was set aside. If A1 wanted to marry A4, it is possible that he would keep back these facts from his sister as also from A4 and A5 i.e. his second wife and her father respectively.= acquitted under the benefit of doubt.

NON-REPORTABLE

English: Chennai high court view taken by myse...

Image via Wikipedia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 234-235 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1262-1263 of 2009)
Kannan … Appellant
Versus
Selvamuthukani … Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.236 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7924 of 2009)

 
Murugayee & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
Selvamuthukani @ Selvamuthu … Respondent

 
JUDGMENT

 
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of
by a common judgment as they challenge the judgment and
2

 

order dated 24.9.2008 delivered by the Madras High Court
in Criminal R.C. Nos. 1439 and 1440 of 2005 filed by the
respondent.

 
3. It is necessary to state the facts which led to these
appeals. The respondent – Selvamuthukani @ Selvamuthu is
the original complainant ( `the complainant’ for short). She
filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate
No. 1, Coimbatore being CC No. 620 of 1992 against Kannan
(original accused 1 – `A1′ for short), M. Rangan Chettiar
(original accused 2 – `A2′ for short), Murugayee (original
accused 3 – `A3′ for short), K. Palaniammal (original accused
4 – `A4′ for short), Ganesan (original accused 5 – `A5′ for
short) and seven others. The complainant alleged that she
was married to A1 on 16.6.1980. According to her, during
the subsistence of her marriage with A1, A1 married A4 and
thus committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short `the IPC’). The
complainant further alleged that by actively assisting and
participating in the said marriage ceremony, the other
3

 

accused abetted the commission of said offence and they
are thus guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read
with Section 109 of the IPC. After perusing the complaint
and deposition of the complainant, learned Magistrate
framed charge under Section 494 of the IPC against A1 and
under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC against
A2 to A5. The complainant examined herself as PW-1. She
also examined two more witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3). The
accused examined two witnesses in support of their case
(DW-1 and DW-2). After perusing the evidence on record,
learned Magistrate held A1 guilty of offence punishable
under Section 494 of the IPC. He held A2 to A5 guilty of
offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109
of the IPC. He sentenced all the accused to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- each. In default, the accused were to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month.

 
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, A1
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2004 and A2 to A5
4

 

preferred Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2004 in the Court of
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Learned Sessions
Judge, while disposing of the appeals confirmed the
conviction but reduced the sentence of the accused to the
sentence already undergone by them. The said judgment
was challenged by the complainant in the Madras High
Court. She preferred two criminal revision cases being
Criminal Revision Case No. 1439 of 2005 and Criminal
Revision Case No. 1440 of 2005. By the impugned
judgment the High Court confirmed the finding that A1 had
during the subsistence of his first marriage married A4 and
was, therefore, guilty of offence punishable under Section
494 of the IPC. The High Court also confirmed the finding
that A2 to A5 abetted the said offence and hence, they were
guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read with
Section 109 of the IPC. The High Court noted that none of
the accused has chosen to prefer any appeal or revision and,
therefore, conviction recorded by the trial court which was
confirmed by the lower appellate court has become final.
5

 

The High Court also noted that the accused were on bail
throughout and that they had not served any part of the
sentence in jail. The High Court was of the opinion that in
the circumstances the reduction of sentence done by the
lower appellate court cannot be sustained. In the opinion of
the High Court the said order was passed without application
of mind. In the circumstances, the High Court reduced the
sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to A1
to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence of two
years each awarded to A2 to A5 was reduced to six months
rigorous imprisonment each. The High Court did not modify
the trial court’s order as regards fine. The criminal revision
cases were thus partly allowed. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the accused have preferred the present appeals.

 
5. Admittedly A2 (Rangan Chettiar) is dead and his name
has been struck of from the array of parties vide this Court’s
order dated 2.9.2011. So far as A1 i.e. husband of the
complainant is concerned, he has undergone the sentence
6

 

awarded to him. Thus, we have to consider the involvement
of A3, A4 and A5 in the offences in question.

 
6. We have heard Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned
senior counsel appearing for the accused and Shri Rana
Ranjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant-respondent.

 
7. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that A1
had filed a divorce petition against the complainant. A
divorce decree was passed on 20.2.1991. The appeal filed
by the complainant was allowed on 10.2.1992 and on that
date the marriage between A1 and the complainant could be
said to have been revived. A1 married A4 on 8.3.1992 but
there is nothing to establish that A3, A4 or A5 knew that the
divorce decree dated 20.2.1991 was set aside. To hold that
A3, A4 and A5 had knowledge of the fact that on 10.2.1992
the divorce decree was set aside, would be entering into the
arena of conjectures and surmises. Counsel submitted that,
in any case, the marriage between the complainant and A1
7

 

has been dissolved by a consent decree dated 12.1.2010.
Counsel submitted that A5, the father of the second wife i.e.
A4 is 80 years of age. He is seriously ill. He is surviving on
one kidney. Counsel submitted that in the circumstances of
the case, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be
set aside.

 
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant on the
other hand submitted that the marriage between the
complainant and A1 is established beyond doubt. There is
enough evidence on record to establish that during the
subsistence of the first marriage, A1 got married to A4.
Counsel submitted that it is inconceivable that A3 to A5 did
not know that the divorce decree obtained by A1 was set
aside on 10.2.1992. Therefore, they have rightly been
convicted for offence under Section 494 read with Section
109 of the IPC.

 
9. The prosecution has clearly established that A1 was
married to the complainant on 16.6.1980. It is also a fact
8

 

that A1 obtained a decree of divorce on 20.2.1991 which
was set aside on 10.2.1992 in the appeal carried by the
complainant against the said decree of divorce. Evidence of
the complainant establishes beyond doubt that A1 married
A4 on 8.3.1992. The question is whether the fact that the
decree of divorce was set aside and the marriage between
A1 and the complainant was revived was known to A3, A4
and A5. Merely because A3 is the sister of A1, it cannot be
presumed that she knew that the decree of divorce was set
aside. If A1 wanted to marry A4, it is possible that he would
keep back these facts from his sister as also from A4 and A5
i.e. his second wife and her father respectively.

 
10. In our opinion, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
does not conclusively establish that the fact that the decree
of divorce was set aside on 10.2.1992 was known to A3, A4
and A5 and, therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to A3,
A4 and A5. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the
impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 so far as it
9

 

convicts and sentences A3, A4 and A5 needs to be set aside.
Hence, the following order:

 

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.2008
passed in Criminal R.C. Nos. 1439 and 1440 of 2005 is
quashed and set aside to the extent it convicts and
sentences A3, A4 and A5. Murugayee (original accused
3), K. Palaniammal (original accused 4), and Ganesan
(original accused 5) are acquitted of the charge under
Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. Their bail
bonds stand discharged.

 
12. Appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.

 
……………………………………………..J.

(AFTAB ALAM)
……………………………………………..J.

(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI

JANUARY 30, 2012.

 
1

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,040 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: