SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No.427/2018 Of Mannarkkad … vs By Advs.Sri.K.B.Arunkumar on 2 July, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 3791 of 2018
—————–
CRIME NO.427/2018 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 SUKUMARAN,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LAYAPPAN,
CHANDHANAVELAYIL VEEDU,
POONJOLA, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2 DEVAKI,
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. LAYAPPAN,
CHANDHANAVELAYIL VEEDU,
POONJOLA, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJIT BABU

RESPONDENT:

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN 682 031.

ADDITONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:

2. JYOTHY, AGED 28,
D/O. RAJAN, KATHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
OORAKAM, P.O.ARATTUPUZHA, CHERPU,
THRISSUR.
(ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.7.2018
IN CRL.M.A. NO.6163/2018)

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

KRJ

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
————————————–
B.A. No.3791 of 2018
————————————–
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2018

ORDER

1. This application is filed under B’438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. The applicants herein are son and mother respectively. They

have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.427 of 2018 of Mannarghat Police Station, registered

under B’498A of the IPC. The de facto complainant is the

former wife of the 1st applicant.

3. From the information furnished by the de facto complainant,

on the basis of which the instant Crime is registered, it

appears that the applicants herein are near relatives of the de

facto complainant. They felt attracted to each other and

decided to marry. On 7.2.2008, the marriage was solemnised

and they started living as husband and wife. According to the

victim, the spouses lived a happy life for about six years. The

relationship then became strained. The applicants started
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 2

physically and mentally harassing her and left with no

alternative, they decided to go separate ways. A petition

seeking divorce by mutual consent was filed before the

Family Court, Thrissur. By order dated 8.1.2016, the petition

was allowed and the marriage was dissolved. According to

the victim, on 25.2.2017, the 1st applicant again approached

her and insisted that they mend their broken relationship and

live together. Consequently, she again started living with the

applicants. The 1st applicant assured her that their marriage

would be registered. After about two weeks, the applicants

are alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, being the

litigation expenses incurred by them. The amount as

demanded was handed over based on the assurance that

property which stood in the name of the 1 st applicant would

be assigned to her. According to the victim, the applicants

started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment. On

24.3.2018, while the 1st applicant was sitting outside, the

victim poured kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze.

According to the victim, the applicants did not make an

attempt to save her. She was rushed to the hospital, where

she disclosed that it was a case of accident. According to the
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 3

victim, such a statement was made at the instance of the

applicants. She sustained extensive burns and had to be

treated at the Jubilee Mission Hospital. According to the

victim, she had set herself ablaze due to the incessant cruelty

and harassment of the applicants.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that the offence under B’498A of the IPC would not be

attracted as the marriage between the 1st applicant and the

victim had been dissolved by Annexure-1 order of the Family

Court. According to the learned counsel, the parties are near

relatives and the allegation of mental as well as physical

harassment is without basis. The marriage was dissolved

earlier by a decree of divorce and even after that, the victim

came to the house of the applicants and started residing

there. Before the Doctor, who had examined the victim, she

had stated that the kerosene stove had exploded and she had

sustained injuries as a result. Even in her additional

statement, she has disclosed that she herself had poured

kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze. The learned

counsel submitted that the allegation that the applicants did

not make any attempt to rescue her is not correct. The 1 st
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 4

applicant had also sustained extensive injuries and reference

is made to Annexure-2 treatment records of the 1st applicant.

According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant

was acting in a very unstable manner and the sequence of

events would clearly evidence the said fact. Finally, it is

submitted that the applicants are not persons with criminal

antecedents and it is prayed that they be spared from the

rigours of custodial interrogation.

5. The de facto complainant has entered through counsel. The

learned counsel has also filed an objection opposing the

prayer. It is submitted that the victim was living with the

applicants even after the marriage was dissolved. There are

materials to show that the lady was subjected to cruelty and

this had driven the victim to make an attempt to commit

suicide. The statement of the victim would show that she had

attempted to commit suicide as instigated by the applicants

herein. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in

Berin P. Varghese v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 317] to

substantiate her contention. The victim has explained the

reasons as to why she had given a different version before the

doctor. The allegations are very grave, according to the
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 5

learned counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor has also

supported the contentions of the learned counsel.

6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and

have gone through the statements of the victim. It is

undisputed that the parties are near relatives and their

marriage was dissolved by Annexure-1 order. Offence of

cruelty and dowry demand presupposes the existence of a

valid marriage. It appears that the de facto complainant is a

highly sensitive person and the burn injuries were inflicted

upon her by herself. There is some discrepancy in her earlier

version with regard to the mode in which the injuries were

caused. Having gone through the facts and circumstances, I

am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of

the applicants are not necessary for an effective investigation.

7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The

applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within

ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be

released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 6

solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall

be subject to the following conditions.

i) They shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all
Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two
months or till final report is filed, whichever is
earlier.

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the
court or to any police officer.

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while
on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the

application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V.,
JUDGE

ps/24/6

//true copy//

P.S to Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation