IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2289 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------------- [CC.NO.441/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NADAPURAM, CR.NO.64/07 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SMT.SHAMEENA, D/O. T.P.KUNHIMOOSA, 'SEREENAS', VENGOLI KAYAPPANICHI, P.O.PERINGATHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SARVOTHAMAN. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAFEER, S/O. MUSALIAR, ALATHANKANDI HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH. 2. RABI, W/O. SOOPPY MUSALIAR, ALATHANKANDI HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH. 3. SOOPPY MUSALIAR, S/O. AMMED, ALATHANKANDI HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2289 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, 15th day of September, 2010. O R D E R This Crl.R.P is preferred by the de facto complainant in Crime No.64/2007 of Valayam police station, as she is aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram, in C.C.No.441/2007. 2. The above crime was registered on the basis of the allegation of the de facto complainant/revision petitioner that the fist accused married PW1 on 23.4.2006 and while they were residing as husband and wife, she was subjected to cruelty by first accused-husband and other accused demanding Rs.50,000/- as balance dowry and also by stating that the ornaments received by her at the time of marriage were insufficient. It is also the allegation that out of 44 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments, 33 sovereigns and two lakhs rupees received by her at the time of marriage were dishonestly obtained by the accused and cheated her. So according to the de facto complainant, the accused, three in number, committed the offences punishable under sections 498(A) and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. CRL.R.P.2289/10 :-2-: 3. The police, after investigation in the above crime, filed a report based upon which cognizance was taken upon which cognizance was taken for the above offences and C.C.No.441/2007 was instituted in the trial court. During the trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked from the side of the prosecution. From the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. After appreciation of the evidence and the materials the trial court has held that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused and, accordingly, all the accused were acquitted. It is the above order of acquittal challenged at the instance of the private party who is the de facto complainant in this Crl .R.P. 4. In this juncture it is relevant to note that though the prosecution agency is the police, no Revision Petition or Appeal is filed by the said agency against the order of acquittal of the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri K.P.sarvothaman, appearing for the revision petitioner, and also perused the impugned judgment. After analysing the evidence on record, CRL.R.P.2289/10 :-3-: the trial court mooted a question as to whether cruelty as defined under section 498(A) of IPC is attracted in the present case. The trial court has found that there is no specific allegation of cruelty by first accused. The trial court has recited the version of PW1 that after marriage, A1 returned to gulf country on 20.5.2006 whereas the marriage was on 23.4.2006. But PW1 stated in the box that he returned on 24.5.2006. It is also stated by the learned Magistrate that in the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that after a few days of marriage, she along with A1 had gone for attending a marriage and that it was very happily they went for the marriage. Even thereafter, when she came to her parental house along with A1 on several occasions, they were happy. Ext.D1 is the registered notice issued at the instance of PW1 wherein there is no allegation regarding any kind of cruelty either from the side of A1 or from the parents of A1 i.e., A2 and A3. The learned Magistrate further found that in the said notice, the de facto complainant had affirmed that she had led a happy marital life with A1. The learned Magistrate also observed that as per the notice, A3 was informed that some CRL.R.P.2289/10 :-4-: of his relatives were trying to brake that happy marital relationship by their illegal interference. Thus A3 was requested to intervene in the matter. So, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of Ext.D1 notice issued by PW1, came into a conclusion that Ext.D1 itself disproved the case set up by PW1. According to the court below, there was no convincing explanation regarding the contents of Ext.P1. The learned Magistrate also found that there is no specific instance of cruelty either in Ext.P1 or in the deposition of PW1 and there is no corroborative evidence to prove the cruelty as stated by PW1. 6. Regarding the ornaments, the learned Magistrate has observed that PW1 has a case that out of 44 ½ sovereign of gold ornaments, 33 sovereigns were obtained by the accused for purchasing a property, but in Ext.P1, the case of PW1 is that 28 sovereigns were obtained by A2 and 5 sovereigns were forcefully taken by A1. But the learned Magistrate further observed that before the police, the case of the de facto complainant is that the ornaments were obtained by A2 and A3 after mediation. Ext.D2 is the CRL.R.P.2289/10 :-5-: contradiction of Ext.P1. Regarding the quantum of ornaments also there is no satisfactory evidence. The learned Magistrate observed that in order to prove the quantity of the gold ornaments , there is purchase bill, according to PW1, but no such document was produced by her. The learned Magistrate also considered the evidence of PW2. According to him, the gold ornaments were obtained by the accused and they pledged the same. But no document, either produced or summoned by the prosecution to prove the above allegation. Thus, on the basis of the available materials , the trial court found that though PW1 and A1 had led a happy marital life, later it was broken and they started living separately. It is also found by the learned Magistrate that A1 got a second marriage and left the gulf country. On the basis of the above materials and evidence, the trial court came into a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecution allegation against the accused. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the learned magistrate has overlooked any evidence available in favour CRL.R.P.2289/10 :-6-: of the prosecution and thereby caused any miscarriage of justice or committed any manifest error. Unless the above grounds are substantiated, this court is not expected to interfere with an order of acquittal while exercising the revisional jurisdiction that too at the instance of a private party. From the materials referred above and the discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. As there is no compelling reasons or substantial grounds, the presumption of innocence reiterated by the order of acquittal cannot be disturbed. Hence there is no merit in this Crl.R.P. and the same is dismissed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-