R. Bagyalakshim vs The State

C.S. Karnan, J.—This revision petitioner/Accused No. 2 has preferred the criminal revision petition against the order passed in Crl.M.P.

No. 297 of 2009 in S.C. No. 413 of 2008 by the Mahila Judge, Tirunelveli District dated 12.10.2009 to set aside the same and allow the criminal

revision petition.

The prosecution case is that the respondent police has registered a criminal case in crime No. 356 of 2007 an alleged offence under Sections

498(A) and 304(B) of I.P.C. On 25.07.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. the respondent police had received a complaint from the de-facto complainant

Mrs. Kalishwari w/o Senthilkumar stating in her complaint that her brother-in-law Ganeshpandian has married one Mahalakshmi D/o Vijayan of

Madurai 8 months before. After marriage the said Ganeshpandian husband of Mahalakshmi left for Singapore for personal employment. On

25.07.2007 the said Mahalakshmi hung herself and expired. At that time no .. was in the house. The complainant and her mother-in-law came to

the house but the house was locked. Immediately the lock of the house was broken open and she witnessed that Mahalakshmi was hanging with

the help of one Mariappan who was a neibour in the opposite house. The said complaint was registered by the respondent police u/s 174 Code of

Criminal Procedure

The said case was investigated by the respondent police and recorded the statements of 16 witnesses and mentioned 10 documents evidences.

At this stage, the petitioner/Accused No. 2 has filed Crl.RC. No. 548 of 2009 to discharge from the above case.

In the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petitioner the accused stated that she is in no way connected with the criminal case, that she never demanded

any dowry from the deceased person. The case was registered on the basis of witnesses, no age witness or circumstantial evidence in this case.

Witnesses 1 to 6 are close relatives of the deceased. d No documentary evidence in the said happenings. Hence, she prayed to be discharged

from the criminal case.

On the side of the prosecution objection was filed stating that a charge sheet was filed against the accused after due inquiry. The accused has

admitted that her son left for Singapore immediately after his marriage, further she admitted that the deceased was living with her husband at the

matrimonial house. Before informing to the police and revenue authorities the deceased was brought down from the having position and as such, it

is an unnatural death.

The learned Judge after perusing the contents of the discharge petition and objections of the respondent police and arguments from the learned

Counsels for the respective parties, the learned Judge, has come to the conclusion that the marriage was solemnized between the deceased

Mahalakshmi and the son of the accused Ganeshpandian on 26.02.2007. The newly married couple led this life only 12 days at the matrimonial

home, thereafter the husband of the deceased left for Singapore, this was in content a factual situation.

Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report reveals that the deceased and her in laws lived together at the matrimonial house. The deceased

had hung herself but this was not informed to the police or Village Administrative Officer. The husband of the deceased deserted within 12 days

from the date of their marriage. The gold ornaments of the deceased were mortgaged by the accused. Further, the accused demanded a sum of

Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry payment and no one supported the deceased at the matrimonial house, this forms the vital findings of the Revenue

Divisional Officer.

The learned Judge, after considering the above facts and circumstances the discharged petition of the accused in Cr.M.P. No. 297 of 2009 was

dismissed on 12.10.2009. Aggrieved by the said order the accused No. 2 has filed the Criminal Revision.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended in his revision petition that the learned Judge failed to apply his Judicial mind in the discharge

petition. No circumstantial evidence or eye witnesses are in this case. The statements collected by the prosecution from the witnesses are only

hearsay. Hence, the learned Counsel prays to allow this criminal revision petition.

The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the co-accused her husband has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 548 of 2009 on the

same impugned order. The same was not pressed upon by the counsel on 24.02.2010, hence the revision petition is dismissed. The co-accused

has filed this above revision on the same footing and on the same set of facts. Therefore the revision is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for

the state further argued that the death had occurred at the accused''s house. Further, the death was an unnatural one, therefore trial is necessary to

establish the prosecution case. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) further argued that a charge sheet was filed and now the case is ready for

trial. Hence the learned Government Advocate prays to dismiss the revision.

Considering the charge sheet, Revenue Divisional Officer''s report also the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for this case and the

impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 297 of 2009 dated 12.10.2009, this Court is of the view

that the deceased was left deserted by her husband who flew to Singapore and the death of the deceased was an unnatural one. Hence, a trial is

imperative. This Court does not find any discrepancy by the order passed by the learned trial judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned

Judge is confirmed.

In the result the criminal revision petition is dismissed. This Court hereby directs to the learned Sessions Judge to dispose the case at the

earliest uninfluenced by the findings of the Court, since the accused is advanced in age.