IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1070 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.76/1995 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY CRA.465/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- RAVEENDRAN, @ LALU, S/O. PADMANABHAN, MANATHARAKKADA HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI AMSOM, VALLIADU. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC, before the trial Court, primarily on the allegation that he had subjected PW1, his wife, to cruelty and harassment. The trial court found the petitioner guilty only under Section 498-A and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. It was further directed that the fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 by way of compensation. The trial court acquitted the petitioner under Section 406 IPC. In appeal the Sessions Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that the petitioner had married PW1, the defacto complainant on 15.9.1988, in accordance with the customary rites. PW1 was living with the petitioner in the matrimonial home after the marriage. Petitioner had gone abroad Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 2 in connection with his employment. Initially the relationship between the petitioner and PW1 was cordial but it soon became sour. According to PW1, petitioner used to send threatening letters to her while he was abroad. In June 1994, when the petitioner came home from abroad, he asked PW1 to bring Rs.30,000/- towards dowry from her parents. PW1 alleged that even for the purpose of raising money to go abroad, the petitioner had taken away and sold her gold ornaments weighing about 22 sovereigns. Since PW1 could not bring the money as demanded by the petitioner, she was beaten up by the petitioner on 27.6.1994. In fact on that day she was sent out of the house with her small child. Due to the intervention of some mediators, PW1 returned to the matrimonial home with her child. Again the same process was repeated and she was sent home to bring the money. She again came back to the matrimonial home without money. On her return, she was cruelly assaulted by the petitioner, who caught hold of her hair and beat her. Local residents gathered on hearing the commotion. Her brother on getting information, took her away. Though a complaint was lodged before the police, no case was registered. She was in the hospital for four days. After her discharge she filed a private complaint, Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 3 which was marked as Exhibit P2 in the case. The police registered a crime and investigated after the complaint was forwarded to it u/s 156(3) of the Code. It was thereafter that the petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences mentioned above. 3. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the defence. 4. PW2, who was the maternal uncle deposed that he had participated in the marriage between the petitioner and PW1 held on 15.9.1988. He further asserted that the marriage ceremony was held in accordance with the customary rites prevalent in Ezhava community. Many of the relatives of the bride and bridegroom had also participated. The marriage ceremony was performed by the Santhikaran attached to S.N.D.P Yogam. He further stated that at the time of marriage ornaments weighing 22 sovereigns were given to PW1, by her parents. He also spoke about the demand made by the petitioner for Rs.30,000/- as additional dowry. 5. PW3 was the neighbour of the petitioner. He spoke about the frequent quarrel between the petitioner and PW1. He also stated that one lady named Moly had been residing with the Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 4 petitioner. He further went on to say that petitioner had married Moly. PW4 is the wife of PW3. She also spoke in corroboration of whatever had been stated by PW3. 6. PW5 is a nephew of PW1. He also spoke about the marriage ceremony in which he participated. He further spoke about the quarrel between PW1 and the petitioner. He further stated that PW1 was admitted in hospital because of the assault made by the petitioner. PW6, the brother of PW1 also gave evidence with regard to the marriage ceremony and the other incidents of quarrel between the petitioner and PW1. PW7 was the doctor who examined PW1. On 17.9.1994 she had issued Ext.P5 wound certificate. PW7 spoke about the tenderness on the left side of abdomen. She also stated that PW1 had told her that she was kicked on the navel portion and beaten up by the petitioner. PW8 who was another neighbour of PW1 spoke about the mediation in the dispute between the petitioner and PW1. PW9 had attested Ext.P6 seizure mahazar and PW10 had conducted investigation. PW11 registered the crime. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the deposition of all the witnesses. It is significant to note that all Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 5 witnesses who were examined on the side of the prosecution had quite satisfactorily corroborated the prosecution case. The defence could not succeed in causing any dent in the prosecution case. 8. The trial court had evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record elaborately. The finding entered by the trial court was confirmed by the Sessions Court after a further evaluation. Having perused the entire materials available in record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilty entered by the Court below. 9. Ext.P1 and P4 letters written by the petitioner to PW1, will show that the relationship between the two was not at all cordial. Ext.P5 wound certificate also clearly established that PW1 was physically assaulted and she had been admitted in the hospital. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was some delay in lodging the complaint I am not persuaded to accept the above contention. It had come out in evidence that PW1 had reported the matter to the Police when she was admitted in the hospital. But no action was taken by the Police. It was thereafter that PW1 had filed the private complaint before the court, which in turn was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) of Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 6 the Code of Criminal Procedure, for investigation. 10. Having regard to the entire evidence on record I am totally satisfied that the Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A. Therefore the order of conviction is confirmed. 11. As regards the sentence, I am satisfied that the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted to some extent. Petitioner now stands sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that interests of justice will be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ordered accordingly. 12. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed confirming the order of conviction under Section 498-A IPC. In modification of the sentence imposed on him by the courts below the petitioner is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner fails to remit the sum of Rs.25,000/- he Crl. R.P No.1070 of 2001-B 7 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months. The Court below shall release the amount of Rs.25,000/- to PW1 as and when it is realised from the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 30.4.2009 to receive the sentence, failing which the learned Magistrate shall initiate appropriate coercive steps. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge