Decided on March 13,1952

Raju Udayar Respondents


SOMASUNDARAM, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this case was convicted by the Stationary Sub -Magistrate. Vridhachalam, for an offence under Section 498. I. P. C, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200, and this was confirmed in appeal by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ulundurpet.
(2.) THE - facts are these. P. W. 1, the complainant in this case married C. W. 1 on 1 -7 -1946. They seem to have lived amicably for about three years. On 30 -7 -1949, C. W. 1's father and her aunt, that is her father's sister, both came to the village of P. W. 1 and took C. W. 1 to Vridhachalam for the Adipuram festival, promising to send her back in two or three days. But she never came back. Enquiries instituted by P. W. 1 revealed that she was living with the accused in a village called Eranji in Kallakurichi taluk. P. W. 1 thereupon instituted a complaint against the wife (C. W. 1), her father and the accused for an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. alleging that the jewels were taken away. The Magistrate referred the matter under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and the police report was that no case under Section 379, I.P.C. has been made out, though a case under Section 498, I.P.C. has been made out. The Magistrate took the case on file against the accused only and the accused was tried and convicted as aforesaid. A number of witnesses were examined. But it is enough to refer only to the evidence of four witnesses, viz., P. Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 7 who are the material witnesses in respect of this offence. P. W. 5 is a jutka driver. His evidence is that on the day of the Adipuram festival, which was on 30 -7 -1949, he saw C. W. 1 and the accused at the Rajeswari Bus stand and he took them both to the railway station, and that C. W. 1 hesitated to get into the jutka expressing concern about the future consequences, if her husband came to know of it. But the accused prevailed upon her and both got into the jutka and went to the Vridhachalam station. But they missed the train and the party wanted to go to the next village called Mangalampet to stay there for the night. He took them and left them there. Before going to the station, the jutka in which these two people were travelling got stuck up in front of the house of P. W. 7, the village headman of Vridhachalam, who then saw both C. W. 1 and the accused sitting close by in such a manner as to arouse suspicion. He knew both C. W. 1 as well as the accused and it was he who gave ultimately information to the husband P. W. 1, when he was making enquiries about his wife. P. W. 4 is the village headman of Agaram. He saw both C. W. 1 and the accused at Mangalampet. He knew C. W. 1 as the wife of P. W. I and he identified the accused as the person seen with her that night. P. W. 3 is a school teacher at Eranji. He speaks to the fact that the accused and C. W. 1 were seen in the shed opposite to his house. This is the main evidence on which the accused is convicted of having taken C. W. 1 from her husband P. W. 1. It is necessary to mention here two important documents, Exs. P 1 and P 2, Ex. P 1 is the notice issued by C. W. 1 to her husband in which she has stated that on account of ill -treatment meted out to her by him, she has left him and that he may take steps for divorce. She has stated therein that so far she was concerned, she considered her marriage as cancelled. She also accuses him of having taken her jewels worth thousand rupees and states that she does not propose to live with him any more. Ex. P 2 is a deed of release executed by her on 24 -11 -1949 and it was registered on the 25th. In that deed she states that her marriage with him was without her consent, and that as she was not able to live amicably with him, she went in search of the accused and that she was living with him. She further states that she does not claim any maintenance as she has taken away the jewels in lieu of maintenance. 3a. An attempt was made to show that this document, Ex. P 2, was extracted from her by coercion with the aid of the police. But this has been given the lie by the Sub -Registrar, who was examined as a court -witness. He speaks to the fact that there was no police or any one at the time she came to register the document, that she herself registered it willingly and that P. W. 1, was not even present at the time.
(3.) THE evidence therefore establishes the fact that the woman left her husband on 30th July for the apparent purpose of attending the Adipuram festival, but that on that day she got info a jutka with the accused and went to Mangalampet and ultimately to the village of the accused, and she was living with him. Assuming for a moment that the evidence of P. W. 5 may be exaggerated a little with regard to the persuasion, the fact remains, as spoken to by P. W. 7, against whom nothing could be said, that both of them were travelling in a jutka on the day of the Adipuram festival.;

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