IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 798 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.88/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.652/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/IST APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ M.S.MANOJ, S/o. SANKUNNI ASARI, PUTHOOR HOUSE, KARIPPARAMBU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT NO.1/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.NALINI, D/o.PARAMESWARAN, KUNNOTH HOUSE, KOTTAPPALLY AMSOM AND DESOM RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT 2 IN APPEAL/NON-PARTY TO C.C.652/1994: ---------------- 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.798 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 498 A I.P.C by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The above order is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Respondent No.1, the wife of the petitioner had preferred the complaint against the petitioner and his parents alleging inter alia that they had made her life miserable in the matrimonial home by ill-treating her, both mentally and physically. According to the complainant, petitioner used to come home in an inebriated condition and abuse and harass her demanding for more money and gold. She further alleged in the complaint that petitioner had taken away the gold ornaments given to her by her parents and sold them. The complainant further stated in the complaint that her parents were not in a Crl.R.P.No.798/2000 2 position to accede to the demand made by the petitioner for more gold ornaments and money. Therefore she suffered the ill- treatment and harassment silently. In the mean while the complainant had become pregnant. During the 7th month she had gone to her parental home. She delivered a child in a hospital at Vadakara, near her residence. Though the petitioner had visited the hospital once shortly after the delivery, he had not bothered to visit her thereafter nor had he bothered to pay maintenance or meet the accouchement expenses. To top it all, during the month of May 1994, petitioner had brought another woman named Sunitha to the matrimonial home and started to live with her as husband and wife. In short the complainant alleged that the entire conduct of the petitioner was totally cruel and he had persistently harassed and ill-treated her along with his parents attracting the offence punishable under Section 498 A. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and her father was examined as PW3. PW2 was a neighbour of the complainant. Ext.P1 was marked on the side of the complainant. The accused had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on his side. 4. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of Crl.R.P.No.798/2000 3 the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the prosecution had satisfactorily established the case against the accused. Accordingly the petitioner and his parents (accused Nos.2 and 3) were found guilty under Section 498 A read with Section 34 I.P.C and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence. 5. The Sessions court, in appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.2 and 3. However the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner was confirmed as stated above. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below had erred in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498 A. Learned counsel has pointed out several improbabilities and contradictions in the case. The first contention raised by the learned counsel is that the prosecution had not adduced any corroborative evidence in support of the interested testimony of PW1, the complainant. The other contention is that PW2, the neighbour of the complainant, who was cited as an independent witness had not stated anything to incriminate the accused. According to the learned counsel, PW2 had spoken about incidents which Crl.R.P.No.798/2000 4 allegedly took place in the year 1993. It had come out in evidence that during 1993 the complainant was staying in her parental home and not in the matrimonial home. 7. I have carefully perused the oral testimony of PW1 and that of PW2 and PW3 as well. It is pertinent to note that in the course of her cross examination PW1 had admitted that she had not narrated the entire incidents that had taken place in the matrimonial home. One or two such omissions had been highlighted in the cross examination of PW1. But on a careful perusal of the deposition of PW1, I have no hesitation to hold that courts below were eminently justified in relying on her testimony and holding the petitioner guilty under Section 498 A. It has to be remember that in any matrimonial dispute, and particularly in a case alleging harassment at the hands of the spouse, it may not always be possible to let in independent evidence. Secondly, harassment meted out by a spouse against other may not always be in the presence of neighbours or strangers. Therefore, even assuming there are some omissions or inconsistencies in the nature of the narration given by the complainant as regards the physical and mental torture suffered by her in the matrimonial home, I do not find any reason to disbelieve PW1. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded Crl.R.P.No.798/2000 5 to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Though, lastly learned counsel for the petitioner has made a fervent plea to show some leniency in the matter of sentence, I have no hesitation to hold that this is not a fit case in which any indulgence is warranted. It is brought to my notice the petitioner has not bothered to obey the order passed by the Family Court to pay maintenance to the petitioner and the minor child who is stated to be studying in standard ten. Such a person does not deserve any leniency or sympathy. It had also come out in evidence, as revealed from Ext.P1, that petitioner had been in fact living with the woman mentioned above (Smt. Sunitha. ) The criminal revision petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs