Madras High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

A plausible acquittal cannot be disturbed absent perversity in the findings.

RAJAMMA vs STATE REP BY

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A plausible acquittal cannot be disturbed absent perversity in the findings.. RAJAMMA vs STATE REP BY. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Rajamma alleged that she married the second respondent in 1988, that he married the third respondent while their marriage subsisted, and that the respondents subjected her to cruelty, abuse and threats.

Source reference: pp. 1–2

Following her complaint, the respondents were charged under Sections 294(b), 498A, 494 and 506(i) IPC. The Trial Court convicted them, but the Sessions Court reversed the convictions and acquitted them. Rajamma appealed under Section 372 CrPC.

Source reference: pp. 1–2

At trial, she acknowledged that a civil suit had resulted in a declaration that she was not the second respondent’s legally wedded wife; she and other witnesses also gave evidence undermining the prosecution case.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
02

Issues

Whether the evidence established the charged offences, particularly cruelty under Section 498A and bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

Source reference: pp. 5–6

Whether the appellate court’s acquittal disclosed perversity warranting interference in the appellant’s appeal.

Source reference: p. 6
03

Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 294(b), 498A, 494 and 506(i) of the IPC, under which the respondents had been charged, and Section 372 CrPC, under which the appeal was brought.

Source reference: pp. 1–2

It applied the principle that an appellate acquittal should not be disturbed where the view taken is plausible and no perversity warranting interference is shown.

Source reference: p. 6

The judgment cites no precedent.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the appellant’s own evidence placed her and the second respondent apart from 1990 and did not establish conduct amounting to cruelty under Section 498A.

Source reference: p. 5

The evidence concerning the alleged marriage and the parties’ relationship was also weakened by the civil court decree and by the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who disavowed pursuing the complaint; the Court consequently found it unsafe to sustain the convictions.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

As the Sessions Court’s view was plausible and not shown to be perverse, the Court found no basis to interfere with the acquittal.

Source reference: p. 6
05

Holding

It held that the impugned judgment disclosed no perversity warranting appellate interference.

The Court dismissed the appeal, leaving undisturbed the Sessions Court’s acquittal of the second and third respondents.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Indian Penal Code, 18603

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

RAJAMMAvsSTATE REP BY

Madras High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment