IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939

CRL.A.No. 62 of 2010 ( )

IN SC 650/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD
DATED 22-12-2009

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
UNNIKRISHNAN @ CHANDU,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.S. HRITHWIK

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.A. No. 62 of 2010

Dated this a 17th day of August, 2017

J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein hurdles a self-assurance and visualisation opposite him underneath Section 498A, IPC in S.C. No. 650 of 2006 of a Court of Session, Palakkad. The pronounced box relates to a elect of self-murder by one Pushpalatha by blazing herself. Pushpalatha deserted her parents, and left a house, and afterward assimilated a appellant. They started vital as male and wife, sans a authorised marriage, and it was usually a live-in relationship. They continued a attribute for about 4 years. On 3.10.2005, Pushpalatha burnt herself, and on 7.10.2005, she died during a sanatorium due to endless burns, while undergoing treatment. Her mom done a censure before a Police, on a basement of that a Police purebred a crime, and after investigation, a Police submitted final news in Court opposite a appellant underneath Sections 498A and 306, IPC.

2. The assign box is that defunct Pushpalatha had been subjected to most mental and earthy cruelty and nuisance by a indicted by a march of vicious conduct, and when she found it unbearable, she burnt herself to death.

3. On committal, a box came adult before a Court of Session, from where it was done over to a schooled Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Palakkad, for hearing and disposal.

4. The indicted seemed before a Trial Court, and pleaded not guilty to a assign framed opposite him underneath Sections 498A and 306, IPC. The assign examined 17 witnesses in a Trial Court, and current Exts.P1 to P15 documents, including a statements given by a defunct underneath Section 32 of a Indian Evidence Act. The schooled Judicial Magistrate, who available a statement, is one of a 17 witnesses examined in a Trial Court.

5. When examined underneath Section 313, Cr.P.C., a indicted denied a damning circumstances, and projected a counterclaim that he had not during any time treated defunct Pushpalatha with any arrange of cruelty, and that their live-in attribute had been utterly considerate and happy.

6. On an appreciation of a evidence, a Trial Court found a indicted not guilty underneath Section 306, IPC, and accordingly, he was transparent of a pronounced offence, though a Trial Court found a indicted guilty underneath Section 498A, IPC. On conviction, he was condemned to bear severe seizure for dual years, and to compensate a excellent of Rs. 5,000, by visualisation antiquated 22.12.2009. The pronounced visualisation of self-assurance is underneath plea in this appeal.

7. The schooled Counsel for a appellant submitted that a significant aspects as regards a allegations of cruelty need not be probed into in this case, since a self-assurance can't be postulated underneath a law for a reason that a indicted had not during any time married defunct Pushpalatha in suitability with a prevalent rites and ceremonies. The authorised emanate lifted by a appellant is that for a self-assurance underneath Section 498A, IPC, there contingency be a authorised attribute of father and mom between a defunct and a accused.

8. Even according to a prosecution, there had usually been a live-in attribute between a defunct and a accused. PWs 1 and 2 are a relatives of a deceased. Their justification is that some 4 years before to a elect of suicide, Pushpalatha left a residence by abandoning a parents, and she assimilated a accused. She started vital with him, and they so continued to live as male and mom for about 4 years. The relatives do not know a means of death, or because Pushpalatha committed suicide. They have no box in justification that Pushpalatha had been treated rigourously by a accused, or that she had been mentally or physically tormented by a indicted during a 4 years of their live-in relationship.

9. The assign really most relied on a Ext.P3 statements of a plant available underneath Section 32 of a Indian Evidence Act. PW17 is a schooled Magistrate who current a Ext.P3 statements, and PW6 is a alloy who approved a fit mental condition of a defunct to give such a statement. In this statement, defunct Pushpalatha has given transparent denote as to because she motionless to dedicate suicide, or in what circumstance, she motionless to put an finish to her life. The Trial Court did not accept a failing declaration, and found that a matter does not enclose anything clear proof a resources that led to a elect of suicide, or proof a conscious or intentional acts of a accused, heading a defunct to a elect of suicide. There is zero in a justification of a relatives of a defunct or a other witnesses, including a neighbours to infer cruelty. The usually element to infer a purported acts of cruelty is a Ext.P3 statement. But a Court next was not prone to act on it for a self-assurance underneath Section 306, IPC. Accordingly a indicted was found not guilty underneath Section 306, IPC. However, on a basement of a statements of a defunct divulgence a vicious acts she had to bear during a 4 years of her live-in attribute with a accused, a schooled Trial Judge found a indicted guilty underneath Section 498A, IPC.

10. The trend of a progressing decisions was that for a self-assurance underneath Section 498A, IPC, a assign contingency infer a current marital attribute between a defunct and a accused. There occurred a change in a trend when a Honourble Supreme Court interpreted Section 498A, IPC in perspective of a deficiency of a clarification of a word “husband”, and hold that even prolonged co-habitation as male and mom will attract a assign underneath Section 498A, IPC. The Honourable Supreme Court so motionless in Reema Agarwal v. Anupam, we (2004) DMC 201 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 466=2004 (2) KLT 822 SC, and after in Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subrahmaniam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, IV (2009) SLT 687=AIR (2009) SC 2684. In Koppisetti Subbharao’s case, a Honourable Supreme Court hold in Paragraph 6 of a visualisation thus, “…………………….. there could be no snag in law to liberally interpret a difference or expressions relating to a persons committing a corruption so as to wire in not usually those validly married, though also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage, and thereby assume for himself a position of father to live, co-habitat and practice management as such father over another lady ……………………”.

11. It is impending to note that before to a above decisions, a three-Judge Bench of a Honourable Supreme Court had motionless otherwise, that a mental or earthy nuisance of a lady who had not been legally married by a accused, will not attract a assign underneath Section 498A, IPC. In Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, we (2007) DMC 120 (SC)=IX (2006) SLT 493=I (2007) CCR 115 (SC)=2002 (2) Crimes 177 SC, a three-Judge Bench hold that for a assign underneath Section 498A, IPC, there contingency be a current marital attribute between a indicted and a victim. That is a box where a second mom committed suicide, allegedly due to a acts of cruelty of her father and a former wife. The victim’s matrimony with a indicted in a pronounced box was blank ab initio. For a pronounced reason, a Honourable Supreme Court hold that a self-assurance underneath Section 498A can't be sustained. The preference was followed by a Honourable Supreme Court after in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another, we (2009) DMC 887 (SC)=IV (2009) SLT 462=(2009) Cr.LJ 2974. Following a preference of a Honourable Supreme Court cited above in Shivcharan Lal Verma’s case, this Court also hold in Suprabha v. State of Kerala, III (2013) DMC 873 (Ker.)=2013 (3) KLT 514, that, usually a legally married mom can explain a insurance underneath Section 498A, IPC, and that in a deficiency of such a authorised attribute as father and wife, there can't be a self-assurance underneath Section 498A, IPC. In a benefaction case, a attribute of a indicted and a defunct was usually a live-in relationship. Even in Koppisetti Subbharao’s case, a Honourable Supreme Court hold that a parties contingency have undergone some arrange of ceremonies with a intent of removing married. In this case, a parties, admittedly, had not undergone any such ceremony, and they only started vital as male and wife. Thus, we find that on authorised belligerent itself, a indicted is entitled for acquittal. In a above circumstances, it is not required to go into a significant aspects as regards a claim of cruelty and harassment.

In a result, a interest is allowed. The appellant is not found guilty of a corruption underneath Section 498A, IPC, and he is transparent of a pronounced corruption in interest underneath Section 386(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, a self-assurance and visualisation opposite him in S.C.No. 650 of 2006 of a Court next will mount set aside. The appellant is expelled from prosecution, and a bail bond, if any, executed by him will mount discharged.

Appeal allowed.