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