SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Revision vs By Adv.Sri.C.Rajendran on 27 June, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2252 of 2005

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 194/2005 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

PUSHPA, D/O.RAJALEKSHMI,
KANJIRAPPALLY VEEDU, VERUVALLIBHAGOM MURI,,
KEERIKKATTU VILLAGE.

BY ADV.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:

1. DEEPAK, S/O.T.N.MENON,
SITHARA, THRIKKAKKARA MURI, KOCHI.

2. T.N.MENON @ APPAN THACHETH,
SITHARA, THRIKKAKKARA MURI, KOCHI.

3. SEETHA DEVI @ SEETHA THACHETH,
W/O.T.N.BALAN, SITHARA, THRIKKAKKARA MURI, KOCHI.

R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR (KALLESSERIL)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 27th June, 2018

ORDER

The judgment of acquittal of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam dated 31.3.2005 in C.C

194/2002 is under challenge in this revision. The revision

petitioner is the de facto complainant, who initiated the

said prosecution against her husband and the parents-in-

law under Section 498A I.P.C. The complaint filed by her

alleging matrimonial cruelty was forwarded by the learned

Magistrate to the Police for investigation under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the Police submitted final

report against the husband and the parents-in-law of the

complainant under Section 498A I.P.C.

2. All the accused appeared before the learned

Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed

against them. The prosecution examined six witnesses

including the de facto complainant, and proved Ext.P1

document in the trial court. When examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating

circumstances and maintained a defence of total denial.
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
2

They did not adduce any oral evidence, but Ext.D1 was

marked on their side.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial

court found that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove

the case of matrimonial cruelty beyond reasonable doubt,

and accordingly, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the

three accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by

the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has come up in

revision.

4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

entire materials including the evidence given by the de

facto complainant, who is the main witness, I find that

practically the grievance of the complainant is desertion

and neglect on the part of her husband. Ext.P1 is the

complaint filed by her before the court, and in court she

gave evidence when examined-in-chief, consistent with the

versions in the complaint. Her grievance is that during the

matrimony, she had been mentally and physically harassed

by her husband and the parents-in-law by demanding more

dowry and ornaments and even otherwise. Mere demand
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
3

of dowry or ornaments will not by itself cause a prosecution

under Section 498A I.P.C, That may at the best constitute

an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. For a

proceeding under Section 498A I.P.C that demand must

involve a cruelty element, or the prosecution must have a

case that the victim had been was subjected to some sort

of mental or physical harassment or cruelty by a

continuance course of conduct. One or two stray instances

of assault or some ordinary wear and tear in matrimony will

not cause a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. To a

definite and specific question put to the complainant during

cross-examination whether she was prepared to rejoin her

husband abandoning all litigations, she stated that due to

the neglect or abandonment on the part of the husband,

she found it not mentally possible to rejoin him. To that

specific question she did not state that she would not

rejoin due to the cruel habits or acts of the husband. This

answer itself shows that practically her grievance is not one

of cruelty actually, but her husband has neglected or

abandoned her and her child, and due to this neglect for
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
4

years, she feels it not possible to rejoin her husband.

5. Another aspect in the evidence of PW1 and

others is regarding appropriation of gold ornaments by the

husband and the in-laws. In examination-in-chief, she

stated that the ornaments were given to the husband,

whereas in cross-examination, she stated that the

ornaments were given to the 3rd accused. She has no

consistent case as to who appropriated the ornaments.

Anyway, it is a fact that the ornaments were taken by the

accused for the marriage purposes of the sister-in-law of the

complainant. A close examination of the evidence given by

PW1 and her father (PW2)would show that the demand was

actually not for dowry, but for some amount for the

publication of some book or CD. It appears that the 1 st

accused had written something and he wanted to publish it.

As this required some amount, he demanded some amount

from the father-in-law. This is what really happened I find.

6. What is required for a prosecution under Section

498A I.P.C is mental or physical harassment of the victim

by the husband or the in-laws by a course of cruel conduct.
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
5

In this case, the witnesses have stated about an instance of

assault. This solicitory instance, of course, will not cause

a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. There is no

satisfactory evidence in this case to prove that PW1 had

been subjected to mental or physical harassment by any of

the accused by a course of cruel conduct. Some disputes

in matrimony, or some stray instances of discord will not by

itself cause a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. As

already found, a close examination of the evidence given by

the victim will show that her actual grievance is not cruelty

or harassment, but neglect or desertion on the part of her

husband. I find that the accused were rightly found not

guilty by the trial court. I find that there is no clear and

satisfactory evidence in this case to find any of the accused

guilty under Section 498A I.P.C.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed

confirming the judgment of acquittal of the court below in

C.C 194/2002. Sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge
Crl.R.P No.2252 of 2005
6

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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