SAROJINI Vs. DORAISAMI CHETTIAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(MAD)-1970-10-13
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on October 23,1970

SAROJINI Appellant
VERSUS
Doraisami Chettiar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.Mudaliyar J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Sarojini, P.W.1, against the acquittal of seven accused (A -1 to A -7) for offences under S. 494 I.P.C (A -1 only) and under S. 494 read with S. 109,I.P.C. (A.2 to A.7 only). Sarojini is the complainant who is residing in Udumalpet. According to her evidence A.1 is her husband. He married her in 1963 in the month of Avani on a Wednesday in Vinayagar Temple in Kettaimedu in Udumalpet. She is now aged 24. At the time of her marriage her age must have been 17 or 18. Her husband, the first accused respondent, arranged for her marriage and married her in the temple between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. on that Wednesday. The parents of the complainant, Sarojini and the 1st accused respondent did not attend the marriage. She went to the temple as a result of arrangement made by her hasband. He married bar in the temple without the knowledge of their parents. He married her according to the rites and customs of their community. Chinna Chettiar (not called) and Govindarajulu, P.W.2 attended the marriage between the first accused and the complainant on the southern side of the temple. They worshipped the Pillayar made of turmeric. A.1 brought a thali. After worshipping the Pillayar, A -1 tied the thali round the neck of Sarojini. One Shanmughasundara Asari, P.W.3 made the thali. He came to the temple and gave the thali to A.1, A.1 tied it round her neck after it was given to the priest and after the priest performing agni and homam. The thali was attached to the yellow strings and tied round her neck by A.1. Then the bridal couple exchanged garlands and they west round the temple. They prostrated before the elders present there. Thereafter they went to Coimbatore. A.1, Sarojini, the complainant, P.W.2 and Chinnan Chettiyar (not examined) went to the Sub -Registrar's Office, Coimbatore. A document was registered. That is an agreement to live as husband and wife. The first accused arranged for this also. The script of the document was brought by the first accused himself. The said document was read ever to the complainant -appellant, and she and the first accused signed it. Two witnesses, Chinnan Chettiyar and P.W.2, Govindaraju attested the document, the Sub -Registrar registered the document Ex.P.1 dated 19th June 1963 on its presentation. The original of Ex.P.1 is with A.1. A copy of the original is the Ex.P.1. The married couple returned to Udumalpet and were residing in the house of one Kandasami Gounder called Thottakkara Gounder. They lived there for nine days. She states is her evidence that they were living as hasband and wife all those nine days. The first accused told her that his parents were abusing him for his marriage with her. He left her in her mother's house and went away. He did not come back and take his wife thereafter. Then A -1 sent notice Ex.P.2 dated 29th June 1963 through his counsel, The appellant sent a reply notice Ex. P. 3 dated July 1963 through her vakil. The acknowledgment of the receipt of Ex. P. 3 is proved by Ex. P. 4 and P. 5 which indicate the date of delivery as 9th July 1963. Then there was a panchayat but the first accused did not take her back. She sent another notice on 29th November 1967 through her vakil. The first accused replied in Ex. P.7. It is interesting to notice an averment in Ex. P. 7 that the first marriage took place now itself, that is, on 3rd December 1967 last. In the complaint of P.W. 1 the allegation was that the first accused married the fifth accused on 9th February 1968 at Udumalpet. In the statement by the first accused under S. 342 he admitted that he married Kamalam, A -5 on 9th February, 1968, She states that she did not give any consent of his second marriage. She describes the inter se relationship between A -1 and the other accused.
(2.) P .W. 2 states that A -1 took him for the marriage. He was a co -worker in the same Mills. A -1 and P.W. 2 are friends also. The marriage between A -1 and P.W. 1 took place in the morning. One Asari came and gave the thali. The priest performed homam according to the eastern and A -1 tied the thali round the neck of P.W. 1. Then both went around inside the temple. Then was a gathering of 7 or 8 persons there P.W.2 speaks about their journey Coimbatore and the registration of Ex.P -1 attested by him, P.W. 3 states that he attended the marriage. He went there to give the mangalyam, minji and kaluruttu, ring of the finger of the leg. A -1 ordered for the making of the above jewels and mangalyam also. After making them P.W. 3 took them to the temple and gave them to A.1. At the time of the marriage there was homam, that is, sacred fire. There was one Iyer who lit the homam and the bride and bridegroom were seated there. P.W. 3 was asked to fit the minji which he did. Then he fixed the kaluruttu to the bride. The bridegroom tied the thali round the neck of P.W. 1 then they went round the temple. P.W. 3 returned after taking his charges. He owns 20 houses of his own both in his name and in the name of his father. P.W. 4, Guruswami Naidu speaks about the questioning of A.1 and A -2 in panchayat. A -1 and A -2 stated that they would take P.W. 1 back in two or three months, as the mother of A -1 could not be convinced. But A -1 did not take her back as promised. P.W. 5, Dakshina Murthy Chettiyar is related to P.W. 1. He corroborates the testimony of P.W. 4. P.W. 6 speaks about the joint residence of the first accused and P.W. 1 in his house for nine days.
(3.) THIS is the basic outline of the prosecution case sought to be proved by the complainant, Sarojini (P.W. 1). The plea of the first accused in his statement under S. 342, Crl. P.C. is that he did not marry P.W. 1 and that he was received and an agreement of marriage was get executed and registered. He admits that he had married Kamalam, A -5. His further case is that all the prosecution with cases are deposing falsely. The learned trial Magistrate held that there is no foundation for the marriage of the first accused and the appellant and that no marriage took place at all on 19th June, 1963.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.