IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1977 of 2009() ------------------------------ SC.20/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)-I, MANJERI (C.P.NO.59/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MARAKKAR, VADAKKUMPADAN HOUSE, KARULAL, NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------------------------- 1. SAFIYA, W/O.SAID, KARIPPAL HOUSE, KARUVARAKUNDU AMSOM, THARISU, NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUVARAKUNDU, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1977 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent No. for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Sakeena the deceased, was married to the son of respondent No.1 in December, 2001. She along with her husband was staying with respondent No.1, her mother in law. While so, she committed suicide by hanging on 27.2.2006. PW4 then Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar conducted the inquest. Case was registered for unnatural death. After investigation, final report was filed against respondent No.1 alleging that she committed offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and proved Exts.P1 to P11 and MO1 and MO2 series. After consideration of the evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence of cruelty or harassment as understood under Section 498A of the IPC and acquitted respondent No.1 under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That acquittal is called in question in this revision. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence to show that respondent No.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty and unable to bear its burnt, deceased committed suicide on 27.2.2006. Counsel who took notice for respondent No.1 submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against respondent No.1. I heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.R.P.No.1977/2009 2 2. Section 498A of the IPC defines ‘cruelty’ as under: “498A. xxxxxxxxxxxx Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- a. any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing hr or any person related to her to met any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” In this case evidence regarding the alleged cruelty is given by PWs 1 and 2. PW1 is the father of the deceased and PW2, her sister. According to PW1 who gave first information regarding the alleged incident after three days, respondent No.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty. He stated that he learnt about that only after the death of the deceased. His further statement is that the deceased had not made any complaint to him about the alleged cruelty but he got information from PW2, his elder daughter (sister of deceased). According to PW1, deceased had no problem with her husband and they were living Crl.R.P.No.1977/2009 3 peacefully. PW2 stated that deceased had told her about respondent No.1 ill- treating her. She used to speak ill of her in the presence of neighbours. The further statement made by PW2 is that when the deceased became pregnant for the second time respondent No.1 teased her by saying that she was very quick to conceive a second time. PW2 is also sure that deceased was having a peaceful life with her husband. PWs 6 and 7, neighbours of respondent No.1 have stated that deceased and respondent No.1 were moving in cordial terms. 3. I have been taken through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. I am unable to find any evidence of cruelty which attracted offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh [(2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 664] relied on by learned Additional Sessions Judge it has been stated by the Supreme Court that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws due to disputes or differences without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide is not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. In this case there is no case or evidence for any demand for dowry and any harassment based on that. PW1 had no case about the alleged ill-treatment even at the time he gave first information. It is seen from the evidence of PW4, Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar (Rtd.) that even at the time of inquest nobody had a case of ill-treatment by respondent No.1. Going by the evidence I am not satisfied that cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC is made Crl.R.P.No.1977/2009 4 out. Mere allegations of teasing some time or other, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 even if true are not sufficient to convict respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. That did not amount to any wilful conduct which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no material to hold that respondent No.1 intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding of learned Sessions Judge and the consequent acquittal of respondent No.1 calling for interference. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks