IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 764 of 2003(B) ----------------------- CC.292/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- C.VALSALA, S/O. LATE CHATHU, KURUTHIKODU, TARUR, ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.REHNA.P.G RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDEVAN P., S/O. PANKUNNI, PARUKKUMPALLATHU, KUTHANNUR, ALATHUR. 2. PANKUNNI, PARUKKUMPALLATHU, KUTHANNUR, ALATHUR. 3. LAKSHMI, W/O. PANKUNNI, PARUKKUMPALLATHU, KUTHANNUR, ALATHUR. 4. SURYAPRABHA, W/O. RAGHAVAN, PARUKKUMPALLATHU, KUTHANNUR, ALATHUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.764 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT Appellant is the complainant in a private complaint. Respondents 1 to 4 were tried at her instance for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The complainant was examined as PW1. Her witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were also marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.D1 series (12 letters sent by PW1 to the first accused) and Ext.D2 were marked on the side of the defence though there was no oral evidence. 3. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the complainant had failed to prove the charge against the accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the relevant materials. The gist of the complaint was that accused No.1, the husband of the complainant and his parents and Crl.A.No.764/2003 2 sister (Accused 2 to 4) had harassed and ill treated her demanding for more dowry. 5. Complainant was married to accused No.1 in 1994. According to the complainant, soon after the marriage her husband had asked her to hand over the gold ornaments stating that he would return them after consulting with his family members. Later, when the complainant demanded back the gold ornaments, all the accused subjected her to mental as well as physical cruelty. At the intervention of mediators, ornaments weighing about 14 sovereigns were returned to her. According to the complainant, her husband had become inimical towards her since she had asked him to return the gold ornaments. He and the other accused used to harass the complainant for that reason. Whenever he visited the house of the complainant, he used to ill treat her. In 1998 her husband demanded Rs.50,000/-. He threatened her that if she did not pay the amount, she would be killed. Her parents also started harassing her thereafter. At that stage, she had filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police who failed to take any action. It was in the above Crl.A.No.764/2003 3 circumstances, she had filed the complaint. PW2, who was stated to be a friend of PW1, tried to support the prosecution case. But the learned Magistrate, after evaluating the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no material to hold the accused guilty. 6. Having carefully gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to upset the said finding of acquittal. The learned Magistrate, while considering Ext.D1 series letters sent by PW1 to her husband had also come to the conclusion that the case set up by the accused was more probable or believable. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes