IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 513 of 2002() ------------------------------------ SC.48/1996 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------- STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMED RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------- K. RAJESH, S/O. SADANANDAN, KANNOLIMMAL COLONY, CHENDAYAD DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R1 MR.P.GOPINATH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.513 OF 2002-B ------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.48/1996 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery. The accused was charge sheeted by the police for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief history of the case would reveal that the deceased Shilaja was married by the accused on 26.5.1994. On 19.10.1994 at about 9.30 a.m she had committed suicide by setting ablaze her body by pouring kerosene after closing the door. The prosecution would contend that the death is on account of the cruelty meted out to her by the husband. The accused denied everything and the trial court on appreciation of Exts.P1 to P18 and the evidence of PWs 1 to 25 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. It is against that decision, State has come up in appeal. 2. The point arises for determination is whether the court Crl.A.No.513/02 2 below has erred in arriving at a decision that the accused is not guilty. Point: 3. The unfortunate couple got married on 26.5.1994. At the time of the marriage, the husband was aged 21 years and the wife was aged 19 years. The matrimonial life did not last long and within a period of five months, the wife had committed suicide, for which the husband is now charge sheeted under Section 498(A) and 306 of the I.P.C. The reason projected by the prosecution for the suicide is that the husband had pledged or sold the gold ornaments given to the wife at the time of her marriage and that has resulted in the mishap. The defence is totally a denial of the same. Pw1 is the first informant and his evidence does not implicate anything against the accused. PWs 2 and 4 are the parents of the deceased and, according to them, 8 ½ soverings of gold, which was given at the time of the marriage, had been either pledged or sold by the accused and the newly married couple came to their house with a demand of Rs.5,000/= and as the parents could not do it, husband of the deceased's Crl.A.No.513/02 3 sister gave them a gold chain of 1 ½ soverings, which, according to them, was also sold. PW4 also speaks on the very same line. PW3, who is examined to prove the reason for the suicide of Shilaja, did not support the prosecution and he had turned hostile to the prosecution. PW5, elder sister of the deceased speaks about giving of gold chain of 1 ½ soverings. PWs 6 and 7, who were examined with an intend to prove guilt of the accused, did not support the prosecution at all and they did not depose that the accused was a drunkard or player of cards. The trial court had elaborately considered the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5, who had supported the prosecution case. The trial court observed that Shilaja at no point of time had complained to PWs 2, 4 or 5 that her husband had treated her with cruelty. It has also come out in evidence that there was no demand for dowry or gold ornaments at the time of the marriage and it was given only voluntarily by the parents to the daughter. The only piece of evidence which may militate against the accused is that the materials that are available according to the court below is that the husband had dealt Crl.A.No.513/02 4 with the gold ornaments of the wife after the marriage. It has also come out in evidence from DW1, who is the uncle of the accused, that amount has been borrowed for the purpose of conducting the marriage. But there is no iota of evidence even from the parents of the deceased to the effect that the deceased Shilaja had at any point of time complained them about the misappropriation of the gold ornaments or that the husband has treated her with cruelty. Not only that, the evidence in this case is to the effect that the mother of the accused as well as uncle and wife of the accused along with whom Shilaja lived had at no point of time harassed the deceased Shilaja. It is also found by the trial court that even after selling or pledging her gold ornaments, Shilaja did not make any accusation against the accused when she visited her house. The court below also pointed out that when she was under treatment of the doctor after the incident, then also she had not stated before the doctor that her husband is responsible for the death. 4. So, on an overall analysis of the entire materials, the trial court came to the conclusion that there is no Crl.A.No.513/02 5 evidence to show that the husband has treated the wife with cruelty so as to attract Section 498 (A) of the Act and in the absence of proof of guilt under Section 498 (A), the presumption under Section 113 A of the Act could not be drawn. So, an analysis of the entire materials only leads me also to the conclusion that the trial court had appreciated all the facts in the correct perspective and had arrived at a decision that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the trial court which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl Crl.A.No.513/02 6