CRL A/200/2022 of RAJAMMA Vs STATE REP BY on 8 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.23 of 2018, acquitting the second and third respondents and reversing the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court in C.C.No.447 of 2015.

2. It is the case of the appellant that she got married to the second respondent herein in the year 1988; that while the marriage was in subsistence, the second respondent married the third respondent and had abandoned the appellant and committed cruelty in various ways and when questioned, he threatened the appellant of dire consequences and thus, guilty for the offences committed under Sections 294(b), 498A, 494 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short, “IPC”].

3. On the complaint given by the appellant, a case was registered on 29.06.2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498A, 494 and 506(i) IPC. Investigation was conducted by P.W.7 on the said complaint and the final report was filed for the very same offences. Charges were framed under Sections 294(b), 498A, 494 and 506(i) IPC. During Trial, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.8.

4. The Trial Court held the second and third respondents guilty of the offences and convicted them. On appeal by the second and third respondents, the Appellate Court reversed the finding of guilt and acquitted the second and third respondents. The appellant, who is the defacto complainant, is aggrieved and has preferred the above appeal.

5. Mr.S.Bharath, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had established that she was legally wedded to the second respondent herein; that during the subsistence of the marriage, the second respondent married the third respondent; that when the appellant questioned the second respondent, both the second and third respondents abused her in filthy language besides attacking her and therefore, they are liable for the offences under Section 494 IPC. The learned counsel took this Court through the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3.

6. Mr.K.Devaraj, learned counsel for the second and third respondents, however, would submit that, admittedly, there is a judgment of the Civil Court, holding that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife of the second respondent; that therefore, the offence of Section 494 IPC would not be made out; that the evidence discloses that the appellant and the second respondent were living separately from the year 1990; and that, hence, cruelty does not arise so as to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC.

7. As stated above, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, who claimed to be the wife of the second respondent; P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1; P.W.3 is the uncle of P.W.1; P.W.4 is the witness to the observation mahazzar and would also speak about the mediation held in the year 2001 between the appellant and the second respondent, during which, the second respondent had agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- as permanent alimony to the appellant and to pay Rs.500/- every month as maintenance to the child; P.W.5 is an Assistant working in the Office of the District Registrar, Rayyakottai, and has marked Exhibit P.6 to prove the marriage between the second and third respondents; P.W.6, turned hostile; P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer.

8. P.W.1 in her deposition has stated that she got married to the second respondent in the year 1988 and a child was born out of the wedlock; that only in the year 1990, she went to her parents’ house as the second respondent requested her to stay in her parents’ house and that he would take both the appellant and the child to his residence after sometime; that she lived thereafter with her mother-in-law for sometime and thereafter, the second respondent stopped visiting her and the child; that in the year 2012, when the second respondent came with the third respondent, she came to know that he married her and thereafter lodged the complaint.

9. In her cross examination, P.W.1 had stated that the second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2001 and in that suit, it was declared that she is not the legally wedded wife of the second respondent. She would also further concede that the complaint was lodged at the instance of certain third parties, who were inimical towards the second respondent and that she did not wish to pursue the complaint.

10. P.W.2 also in her cross examination refers to the decree in the civil suit and that, what was deposed by her in the cross examination was true. P.W.3, the uncle of P.W.1, also had stated in the cross examination that the Police had not recorded any statement and that the appellant and the second respondent herein had no relationship. P.W.4, another relative, had spoken about the panchayat said to have been held in the year 2001, wherein the second respondent is said to have promised the appellant permanent alimony of Rs.50,000/- besides maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. P.W.5 was examined to prove the marriage between the second and third respondents.

11. Thus, it could be seen that P.W.1 to P.W.3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution during cross examination. They were not treated hostile by the prosecution. However, to the questions put by the Court, they categorically stated that they did not wish to pursue the complaint and the complaint was lodged at the instance of third persons, who were inimical towards the second respondent. In fact, they have admitted that the second respondent had married the third respondent fifteen years before the complaint was lodged.

12. Firstly, even in the chief examination, there is nothing to suggest the offence under Section 498A of IPC. According to P.W.1, the P.W.1 and the second respondent were living separately. Therefore, if this version is accepted, the offence under Section 498A is not established.

13. In light of the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the Appellate Court held that it would be unsafe to hold the second and third respondents guilty of any of the offences charged. The State has not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal. This Court finds that the view of the Court in the impugned judgment is plausible and there is no perversity warranting interference in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

To:

1. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No. 19/2018.

2. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.

3. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur.

4. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL A No. 200 of 2022 08-10-2026