G. NARAYANASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 271 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram. After trial in the calander case, the trial court, by a judgment dated 02.08.2006, while acquitting A-2 to A-5, has convicted the petitioner/A-1 under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Assailing the judgment of conviction awarded by the trial court, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2006 before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram, inasmuch as it was dismissed on 18.12.2007 confirming the judgment passed by the trial court. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the courts below.

(2.) The facts which led to the launch of criminal prosecution against A-1 to A-5 are as follows:-

(3.) The trial court questioned the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials against them, but they have denied their guilt and stated that a false case has been foisted against them by PW1. The trial court taken into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witness and the documentary evidence and ultimately held that there was a demand for dowry on the part of A-1 and the prosecution witnesses does not specifically point out the role played by A-2 to A-5 in the matter of demand for dowry. The trial court also pointed out that the prosecution witness deposed that only at the instigation of A-2 to A-5, A-1 would beat PW1. The trial court further pointed out that except such a complaint against A-2 to A-5, there was no specific allegation made against them. The trial court also pointed out that even the deposition of PW1 does not specifically point out anything about the demand of dowry by the A-2 to A-5. Therefore, the trial court, while convicting A-1, acquitted A-2 to A5. On appeal, the first appellate Court concurred with the findings of fact rendered by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by A-1. There was no separate appeal filed against the acquittal of A-2 to A-5 either by the prosecution or by PW1.