IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1399 of 2004(B) ------------------------- SC.97/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-I)), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT: 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------- THANKAYYAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUNCHUVEEDU VILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENKADAMBU DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -STATE ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRL.APPEAL NO.1504/2004 ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO.1399 of 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant herein was the second accused in SC No.97/99 of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court I), Thiruvananthapuram. Since the facts of the case are given in the judgment in Crl.A.No.1504/04, filed by the first accused in that Sessions Case, it is not necessary to re-state them here. 2. By the judgment in SC No.97/99, the appellant was convicted under S.498A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellant/second accused with the offence. The main witness of the prosecution, PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, has not spoken anything on the role of A2 in the matter of demand for dowry. The other witnesses, who have spoken against A2 are PWs3, 6 and 24. They would state that for not co-operating to withdraw the amount of Rs.75,000/- deposited in the bank, A1 and A2 were harassing the deceased. They got this information from the deceased herself. For the Crl.A.No.1399/04 2 very same reason, the fruits and other eatables brought by them, when they came to see Valsala, who was pregnant, were thrown away by A1 and A2. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that as admitted by the Investigating Officer, PW32, the above witnesses were questioned only after nine months of the incident. That will raise serious doubts regarding the credibility of their version. Those witnesses were close relatives and neighbours of the deceased. There was no reason for not questioning them, immediately after the incident. It has also come out in evidence that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was examined as PW31, admitted that he has questioned all the witnesses immediately after the incident, but did not record their evidence. It is also pointed out that the possibility of the above witnesses, giving evidence to falsely implicate A2, cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel also pointed out that they appear to be tutored witnesses, going by their version regarding the throwing out of the fruits and other eatables brought by them. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that A2 is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 3. We heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also. According to him, the finding of the court below is liable to be sustained. Crl.A.No.1399/04 3 4. We notice that while PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, was in the box, she has not spoken anything against A2, concerning the harassment in connection with the release of the dowry amount from the bank. The delay in questioning other witnesses raises serious doubts about the credibility of their version regarding the involvement of A2. This is all the more so, in view of the silence of PW1, regarding the involvement of A2. We feel that it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the second accused, solely based on the deposition of PWs3, 6 and 24, in the absence of corroboration by PW1. So, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence passed on the appellant by the court below in SC No.97/99 are set aside and he is acquitted. The bail bond executed by him shall be released. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 11.06.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta Crl.A.No.1399/04 4 Crl.A.No.1399/04 5