High Court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC challenging conviction for cheating. Court upheld finding of fraudulent promise of marriage for sexual intercourse and paternity confirmation via DNA. Revision against fine and compensation order rejected.
Conviction and sentence by First Appellate Court confirmed; criminal revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BAIL SLIP
CRL RC.452 OF 2011
The Appellant/Accused Viz, Loganathan, S/o. Ponnusamy, Aged 27 years, is directed to be released on bail, as per order of this court dated 26.07.2011 in MP.3 of 2011 in Crl Rc.452 of 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 27.04.2018
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 22.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.No.452 of 2011
Loganathan .. Petitioner/Appellant/Accused versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arani. ..Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.45 of 2005 dated 14.02.2011.
This Revision has been preferred against the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District in Crl.A.No.45 of 2005 dated 14.02.2011, wherein, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District in C.C.No.13 of 2002 dated 01.09.2005 in favour of the revision petitioner is confirmed.
facto complainant [P.W.1 / Bharathi] was working as a coolie in K.T.R.Rice Mill, Rathinamangalam, Arani, the present revision petitioner had promised to marry her and upon such promise, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 and she became pregnant. Thereafter, she approached the petitioner for marrying her, for which, the petitioner demanded 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and Rs.20,000/- as dowry, thereby, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police. After receiving the complaint from P.W.1, a case has been registered in Crime No.10 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet has been filed for the same offence.
2.2. In the Trial Court, in order to prove the case of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 6 documents were exhibited as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. In order to dispute the contents of the documents on the side of the petitioner nobody was present to put forth the case of the petitioner. At the end of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is found guilty for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. alone, for which, he awarded conviction and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed the Criminal Appeal [Crl.A.No.45 of 2005] before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.3. After elaborate enquiry, on 14.02.2011, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction and sentence, as follows:
“In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the order passed in C.C.No.13/2002, dated : 01.09.2005 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arni is modified and the conviction under Section 417 of I.P.C., is hereby confirmed and sentence awarded therein, viz., R.I. for one year is also confirmed and levy of fine of Rs.5,000/with default clause alone is set aside and the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to PW1 Bharathi under section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby confirmed.”.
2.4. Now, in order to check the correctness of the said judgments, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this present revision.
Court, directed the revision petitioner to pay the compensation as above.
without any hesitation, I hold that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 417 I.P.C.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1.The Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District. (he is required to serve copy of the order to the petitioner/Accused)
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
All Women Police Station,
Arani.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
7.The Record Keeper,
Criminal Section,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.L.MAHENDRAN, Advocate, S.R.No. 39353
ORDER IN
Crl.R.C.No.452 of 2011
CA(CO)
TR(29/06/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision filed against the conviction and sentence for cheating should be allowed.
Whether the compensation awarded to the victim is sufficient and warrants interference.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Loganathan
State
R. Pongiappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
