IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1700 of 2002(B) ------------------------------- CC.1494/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (PW-1): ------------------------------------------------ K.C.USHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, KONDATTUMADATHIL, RAMAPURAM P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. . SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AJITHKUMAR, SON OF GOPINATHAN, `SREYAS' VEEDU, VELLOORKUNNAM KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. SREEDEVI, W/O. GOPINATHAN, SREYAS VEEDU, VELLOORKUNNAM KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. REKHA, W/O. RAVINDRANATH, VAZHAKULATHU, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O. NANAPPAN NAIR, VAZHAKULATHU, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2 & R3 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1700 OF 2002 --------------------------------------------- Dated 25th May, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.1494/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha. Second respondent is her husband and third respondent, the mother- in-law and fourth respondent, the sister- in-law and fifth respondent, the husband of fourth respondent. Marriage of first petitioner and second respondent was on 4/2/1996. After marriage petitioner was living with second respondent husband and his parents, the third respondent and her husband. Petitioner left the matrimonial home on 31/12/1996. Ext.P1 complaint was preferred by the petitioner before Kerala CRRP 1700/02 2 Women's Commission on 20/5/1997 alleging that all the accused treated her with cruelty. It was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha based on which the crime was registered. After investigation charge was laid alleging that respondents 2 to 5 committed the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined petitioner as PW1, her father as PW2 and brother as PW3. In addition, Pws.4 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the defence second respondent was examined as DW1 and third respondent as DW2 and fifth respondent as DW3. Exts.D1 to D8 were also marked. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found the accused not guilty and acquitted them under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision CRRP 1700/02 3 petition is filed challenging the order of acquittal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that learned Magistrate was not justified in disbelieving the evidence of PW1 as there was no material contradiction with regard to the incident of cruelty in her testimony and Ext.P1 complaint. It is also pointed out that proceedings initiated by the petitioner for realisation for ornaments and money were found in favour of the petitioner and though a miscellaneous first appeal was filed by the second respondent, it was subsequently dismissed and on the evidence the order of acquittal is illegal and is to be set CRRP 1700/02 4 aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of acquittal and revision is only to be dismissed. 5. On hearing the Learned counsel and going through the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and Exts.P1 and D1, I find no illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of evidence. Evidence of PW1 shows that according to her, even the third respondent mother-in-law had physically attacked her and insulted her and tortured her. Ext.P1 complaint filed before the Women's Commission does not disclose any such allegation as against the second petitioner. Case of the petitioner alleged in Ext.P1 and deposed from the witness box are contradictory. And inconsistent. PW2 the father and PW3 the CRRP 1700/02 5 brother had no personal knowledge with regard to the allegations raised by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 5 regarding what transpired while she was residing in the matrimonial home. If evidence of PW1 is to be believed and PW1 was beaten by respondents 2 to 5 as alleged from the box, as rightly found by the learned Magistrate that fact would have been specifically stated in Ext.P1. Evidence of PW1 shows that Ext.P1 complaint was filed after her attempt for re-conciliation failed and finding that there is no other go but to lodge a complaint, to continue the matrimonial relationship. When the entire evidence is appreciated, findings of the learned Magistrate that evidence of PW1 cannot be believed is perfectly legal and correct. There is no other evidence acceptable in CRRP 1700/02 6 support of the unreliable version of PW1. On the evidence learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. As there is no illegality and irregularity in the order of acquittal, revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.