IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1997 of 2003(D) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRL.LP.554/2003 Dated 26/11/2003 CRA.47/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- T.V. VASUDEVAN, FLAT NO.332, NANDINI GARDENS, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT C/O. JYOTHI MOHANAN, FLAT NO.505, NABARD QUARTERS, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SARITHA VARMA RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS & R2-ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. K. MOHANAN, T.C.2/523, C/O. QUICK WELL PRINTERS, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KRISHNA SARMA, T.C.2/523, DO. DO. 3. SARASWATHI, DO. DO. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ADVS. SRI. R.T. PRADEEP, KOTTOOR B. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND SRI.M.S.NISHAD FOR R1 TO R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON 06/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT In this appeal on special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C the appellant who was the complainant in a private complaint registered as C.C.No.406/1994 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Sec. 34 IPC against his son-in-law and the parents of his son-in-law, challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 21.3.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. THE COMPLAINT 2. The averments in the private complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the father of Jyothi, aged 27 years who was given in marriage to the first accused on 1st July 1986. The marriage between Jyothi and the first accused was an arranged one and the same was solemnised at Lalith Mahal, Thiruvananthapuram in accordance with the custom and ceremonies of Hindu (Brahmin) Community, to which the parties belong. The second accused is the father and the third accused is the mother of the first accused. Soon after the marriage, Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:2:- consistent with the custom of the community the complainant's daughter “Jyothi” was taken to the house of the first accused at Ayoor, their family house, and the next day to their residential house at Jyothi Nagar, Kesavadasapuram where her in - laws, the second and third accused were also residing. Both before and at the time of marriage of Jyothi, the complainant was living permanently at Bombay where he was employed. Jyothi was also employed as a Clerk in NABARD at Bombay even prior to her marriage . Jyothi had obtained a transfer to the Thiruvananthapuram office of the NABARD to facilitate an expected married life with her husband, the first accused, who was permanently employed in the Police force at Kerala. There was no demand for dowry from the first accused or the other accused either at or before the marriage. The fact that she is having a permanent employment in a public undertaking with a good monthly salary might have prompted the accused to desist from making any such demand before the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the accused one after the other began to raise demands before the complainant for an amount of Rs.3.02 lakhs on the pretext of putting up a residential building at Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:3:- Thiruvananthapuram. The demand was first raised through a letter dated 5.11.1986 to the complainant by the 2nd accused and later on it was revealed that all the accused have colluded in the demand. The complainant was not rich enough to meet the demand raised by the accused and he had explained to them through letters and subsequently personally his inability to meet the demands raised by them. Thereafter all the accused began to harass and ill - treat the complainant's daughter Jyothi with intend to pressurise her to compel the complainant to part with the money demanded by them. The complainant received letters from persons living close to the neighbourhood of Jyothi and also from his relatives at Thiruvananthapuram informing him of her plight in the matrimonial home. Copies of the letters dated 12.3.1987 from one Nandanan, and letter dated 16-6- 1987 from Major K.M.Jacob, A.M.C (retired) are produced herewith. The efforts of the complainant as well as his wife to make the accused realise their inability to satisfy the demand raised by them and also the unconscionable nature of the demand were of no avail. The ill-treatment and harassment of Jyothi by the accused continued unabated. Jyothi was incessantly abused, Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:4:- ill-treated and neglected by all the accused. On several nights she had to go to bed even without food since all of them refused to provide the same. In fact, the kitchen of the household was fully controlled by the third accused though Jyothi had to do all the household choires . All the accused treated her like a domestic animal and both the in-laws, the second and third accused, always used derisive and abusive language against the complainant in her presence. She was very often told by them that her father, the complainant had disposed her off after tying a thread around her neck like a bitch. Copy of the letter dated 24.11.1986 sent by Jyothi to the complainant stating the harassment by the accused is produced herewith. Every day at the house of the accused was a nightmare to Jyothi. Restrictions were imposed even in her food and she could eat and drink only what the third accused gave her. While so, Jyothi became pregnant. But the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused continued with aggravation and renewed vigour. The second accused, even at that time, forced her to write a letter to the complainant asking him to give the amount demanded by them or else to get prepared for a divorce. The letter which was Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:5:- written by the complainant's daughter on the compulsion of the second accused in the presence of 1st and 3rd accused was subjected to correction by him and the same was sent only thereafter to the complainant. Copy of the letter dated 2nd December 1986 sent by Jyothi to the complainant with the collective direction of the accused is produced herewith. In fact, she had to hand over the letter to the first accused and he had posted the same. The complainant's daughter desired to have her delivery at Bombay where her parents are staying. But the accused refused to accede to her request. The accused had also imposed restrictions on Jyothi from contacting her relatives. Her parents were also forbidden to meet her at the house of the accused till satisfaction of the demands raised by them. The complainant and his wife were supposed to reach Thiruvananthapuram on 3-4-1987 in view of the advanced stage of pregnancy. Jyothi delivered a female child on 30.3.1987 at S.A.T. Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Even after delivery no information of the same was given to the complainant. The complainant had also written a letter to the first accused about his plan to reach Thiruvananthapuram. Knowing of the Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:6:- intended arrival of the complainant and his wife, in order to prevent them from meeting their daughter, Jyothi was discharged from the hospital within 48 hours of the delivery and taken to Ayoor, 35 kms away from Thiruvananthapuram. She was not in a condition to undergo the journey to Ayoor and her condition became worse after the journey. When the complainant and his wife reached Thiruvananthapuram from Bombay on 3-4- 1987 they immediately proceeded to Ayoor on knowing of the removal of Jyothi to that place. When they reached Ayoor they found that their daughter was writhing in pain and agony. She was not only physically weak but was also mentally undergoing severe stress and strain. She requested the complainant to take her also along with them and not to leave her alone in the custody of her in-laws. In view of her precarious condition and knowing fully well that she could not stand any further journey at that time the complainant and his wife consoled her and agreed to remain at Thiruvananthapuram till she was brought along with the child from Ayoor. The 2nd and 3rd accused refused to talk with the complainant and his wife. Even their presence was frowned upon and to avoid an Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:7:- unpleasant situation which could only aggravate the plight of their daughter they had to leave the place on the same day. During her stay at Ayoor the complainant and his wife had to travel from Thiruvananthapuram on several days to console their daughter. On each occasion they could spend only a few hours with her since their presence was not liked by the accused. The complainant and his wife wanted to take their daughter and the new born child to Bombay. But the accused refused them permission to do so. After a span of two months Jyothi along with her child returned to Thiruvananthapuram. Jyothi soon expressed her desire to stay for a few days with her parents. The accused after a lot of persuasion from Jyothi agreed to send her with the child provided her father was willing to pay the airfare. Copy of letter dated 4-7-1987 from Jyothi to the complainant is produced herewith. On coming to know the same the complainant had sent a cheque for Rs.1500/- to Jyothi. The first accused refused to accompany her and hence she had to take the journey alone with the child. Before the journey the second accused had asked her to tell her parents to provide the money demanded or to face dire consequences. After staying for Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:8:- a month at Bombay, she returned with the child to Thiruvananthapuram on 26-8-1987. On the very same day of her return, the second accused asked whether her father had agreed to provide the money demanded. The complainant had advised her to tell the second accused to discuss the matter directly with him and that she should not be dragged into the matter. She informed him of the same. Immediately the second accused became furious and started abusing her and her parents in filthy language. She requested him not to use such abusive language against her parents. He got very angry and came to hit her. He told her that it was his house and he would do anything there. He was on the verge of hitting her but somehow she manged to escape to her room. Her plea to her husband, the first accused was turned down with the remark that elders have every right to say and do whatever they like to youngsters. Copy of letter dated 27-8-1987 sent by Jyothi to complainant is produced herewith. The tension and terror in the house increased day by day and not a moment was spared by the accused 2 and 3 to harass and intimidate Jyothi. Meanwhile Jyothi's daughter got pneumonia and she was admitted to Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:9:- Medical College Hospital. Initially the child was treated at the intensive care unit. After 2 days she was shifted to General ward. Jyothi used to remain at the Hospital while her in-laws remained at home and the first accused went to the office. Whenever the 3rd accused came to the hospital she used to keep on harassing her and complaining about her to the bystanders and to the nearby patients in the ward. Jyothi was so tired and worried and to avoid hearing her tantrums she had to wait outside the ward. This was also viewed very seriously by the second and third accused and none of the accused turned to the hospital the next day. She did not have any money with her and she had to face the predicament all alone. After the recovery of the child, continuance of stay at the house even for a few days was beyond human endurance and in fact she was treated as an outsider. Finally when the atmosphere was beyond all limits, Jyothi pleaded with the accused for permission to go to her parents. The accused refused to let her go. Then after a lot of persuasion they agreed on condition that she would compel her father to contribute for the house construction as demanded by them. She was scared that they would not let her go if she Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:10:- replied in the negative. Hence she agreed to do so. This time also the first accused refused to accompany her and the child. After a stay for one month she returned to the house of the accused. The financial inability of the complainant to satisfy the demand made was not to the liking of the accused and they continued to harass Jyothi. Both Jyothi and her daughter were neglected. While so, the complainant and his wife reached Thiruvananthapuram for meeting Jyothi and the child. They could not go to her house in view of the restriction imposed by the accused. At that time a marriage of one of the close relative of the accused was fixed on the 14-7- 1989 at Karunagappally. The complainant and his wife were also invited to the same by the father of the bride and they had gone to attend the marriage with the desire to meet Jyothi. There the first accused came to the complainant and demanded him to furnish the particulars of the insurance policy which he had taken for his daughter. The complainant told him that the wedding place was not the proper place to discuss such affairs. This was not liked by the first accused and he began to quarrel with the complainant. Some of the relatives intervened in the matter and finally it was Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:11:- agreed that permission would be granted to the complainant and his wife to meet her daughter at the house of the in - laws and likewise she would also be allowed to meet them along with her child at Manacaud where her parents where temporarily put up during their stay at Thiruvananthapuram. It was suggested by them that all problems regarding the demands raised by the accused should be forgotten and forgiven forever. Even thereafter the complainant could not go to the house of Jyothi in view of the continued indifference shown by the accused. While so, on 24-7-1989, the first accused was suspended from service. That evening the second and third accused found fault with Jyothi for the suspension and abused her in filthy language. That night she pleaded with the first accused to permit her to stay a few days with her parents since the situation there was so suffocating. He gave her consent to do so after a lot of pleading by Jyothi. The next day she informed her parents to come to her house and seek the consent of the in-laws also, because she was afraid to tell them of her desire to stay a few days with her parents. Thereupon on 26-7- 89 the complainant and his wife went to the house of the accused. There they found that the Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:12:- harassment perpetrated against Jyothi was still continuing. The second and third accused abused the complainant and his wife and the second accused even attempted to hit Jyothi in their presence. The second accused asked the complainant to take her along with him and told him that she should not come back. He also declared that he would send all her belongings to the place where she is residing. The first accused was witnessing all this as a mute spectator. Finally the complainant and his wife had to take Jyothi and the daughter from that house and ever since then they are staying with them. All her belongings including clothes, valuables etc. are retained by the accused even though Jyothi has demanded return of the same. All the accused have colluded and acted in concert in their demand to the complainant to meet their unlawful demand of Rs.3.25 lakhs, on the pretext of putting up a residential building and on failure to do so, Jyothi the daughter of the complainant was harassed with a view to force her father, the complainant, to meet their unlawful demand and she was subjected to continuous inhuman mental torture and harassment. Thereby all the accused have committed the offence under Section 498A read with Sec. 34 Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:13:- of IPC. The cause of action for the complaint has arisen at Kesavadasapuram where the complainant's daughter Jyothi was subjected to harassment and is within the jurisdiction of Medical College Police station, Thiruvananthapuram which is within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Court. THE COGNIZANCE AND THE TRIAL 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and examined the complainant and the witnesses and the case was taken on file as C.C. 406 of 1994. After the appearance of the accused persons, the witnesses were cross- examined and a charge was framed against them under Sec. 498 A read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and the complainant was thereupon called upon to prove his case. On the side of the prosecution four witnesses were examined as P.W.s 1 to 4 and 12 documents were got marked as Exts. P1 to P12. P.W.1 is none other than the complainant. P.W.2 is his daughter Jyothi. P.W.3 Eswaran Namboothiri is the nephew of P.W.1. P.W.4 (Unnikrishnan) is a common acquaintance of both parties and he had mediated in the dispute pertaining to the demand of money by the accused. Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:14:- 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They got Exts. D1 to D 20 marked on their side . THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 22-2-1997 found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 498 A I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. APPEAL BEFORE SESSIONS COURT 6. On appeal preferred by the appellants/accused as Criminal Appeal 47 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Thirruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31-3-2003 found the accused /respondents not guilty of the offence and acquitted them of the same. Hence this Appeal by the complainant after obtaining Special Leave . Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:15:- THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL 7. The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution has proved that all or any of the accused persons committed an offence punishable under Sec. 498 A I.P.C. and as to whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable or not ? THE POINT: 8. I heard Adv. Smt. Saritha David Chungath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and Adv. Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3/ accused. Since almost all the letters produced in this case as evidence are either partly torn off or mutilated and stand the risk of getting destroyed beyond retrieval, I will be extracting most of those letters in full in this judgment despite it may add to the prolixity of this judgment. BACKGROUND FACTS 9. The following is the chronological turn of events culminating in Vasudevan, the complainant (P.W.1) Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:16:- prosecuting the accused persons for the aforementioned offences and eventually filing this appeal:- 1-7-1986 The marriage between Mohanan (A1) and Jyothi (PW2) was an arranged marriage and it was solemnized on 1-7-1986 at Lalitha Mahal Kalyanamandapam, Thiruvananthapuram in accordance with the custom prevailing among the parties who are Hindus belonging to the Malayala Brahmin Community. Jyothi's father Vasudevan (P.W.1) although hailing from Aluva, is permanently settled in Mumbai. Mohanan' s father Krishna Sharma (A2) hails from Ayoor in Kollam District and was settled in Thiruvananthapuram. 11-7-1986 After reaching back Bombay P.W.1 sent Ext.D7 letter to Jyothi showering praises on A1 to A3 and conveying his happiness in Jyothi getting such a good alliance and in-laws. The following is an extract from the said letter:- “My dearest Jyothi, We have received your letter today. I was very glad to read your long letter with full of love and affection which clearly reflects in each and every words of your letter. I do not know how to explain my feelings. But at the same time I do not know how to explain my joy and satisfaction that you are with such a good people in Thiruvananthapuram. Your in-laws are extremely good people. And I should say that Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:17:- Mohanan is a gem between them. When first I went to Trivandrum, we had a journey to Ayoor and back. Sri. Sharma and myself were in the front seat of the car. Throughout the journey he explained so many things in his life, his education, his beginning of his carrier, strict principles in life, future planning, how much cautiously he brought up Mohanan, how much he was anxious when Mohanan went for a training in Delhi and so many other things. This time also repeatedly he explained his future plans. Many time he was telling me that he considers you as his daughter than his daughter-in-law. Your mother-in-law is also equally a good lady. I have particularly noted that she is always calm, quite and cheerful. She understands you very well. She understands your good and bad qualities very well. Mohanan is being brought up by a very good father and mother. He is extremely good in character, healthy and full of spirits. He has very many good friends. They have a high opinion regarding him. He is also very influential in Trivandrum. It is your luck that you could go to such a good family. From your letter I could make out that you are very happy there. I very much appreciate the way you expressed your love and respect that you are having to your in-laws in Trivandrum. I also understand your love to Mohanan. Sometimes I feel that I had no enough time to spend in Trivandrum with you all. Jyothi, now your father, mother, brother, yourself are all there only. Take particular care in each every thing. You are well informed and well read. Fully utilise your commonsense and be happy”. 22-10-1986 P.W.1 reached Bombay after visiting Jyothi's matrimonial home once again. 24-10-1986 P.W.1 sent Ext.D4 letter to A1 to A3 and Jyothi at Trivandrum. P.W.1 was Crl.A. No. 1997 of 2003 -:18:- expressing happiness over his daughter's life in her matrimonial home. The following is an extract from the said letter:- “Although it was very short, the stay in Trivandrum was a pleasure. We felt sorry to leave you all and returned to Bombay. It was visible to everyone who has come to the station. Naturally every parents are attached to their children, feel sorry to leave one child alone far and return. We are very sure that Jyothi is well protected in your hand and she is happy with you all. In all Jyothi's letters she has mentioned particularly of her Daddy's and Mummy's love and affection to her. Sharma also has told to me this time Jyothi behaves very nicely and they are all very happy and satisfied getting Jyothi as Mohanan's wife. I find Mohan is very decent gentleman and I am lucky to get him as my son in law . I