IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 456 of 2004(B) ------------------------------ CRA.81/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA. CC.117/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- REMANA KURUP, CHANGAMANGALATHU VEEDU, POOZHIKKADU MURI, KURUMPALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - COMPLAINANT - STATE --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER COUNSEL FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER ABSENT. REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 29.9.2010. SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appeal filed against him was dismissed. This revision petition is directed against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution is: Shyamala, the daughter of PW5 and PW6 committed suicide on 25/01/1993 by consuming poison. Ext.P1, the FI statement was lodged by PW1, based on which the FIR was registered. It was alleged that Shyamala who fell in love with the accused eloped with him and later they got married. Two children Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 2 were born to them. That marriage took place on 31/12/1981. Subsequently bickering arose in their matrimonial home. The accused used to consume liquor and subject his wife to physical and mental cruelty. The accused was conducting an arrack shop at Vayala in Kurumpala. Though the parents and relatives of the deceased intervened to have a peaceful life for the couple, again the accused started consuming liquor and torturing her. Because of the unbearable cruel treatment meted out to her, she committed suicide. In fact the allegation made by PW4 and PW5 was that, the poison was actually given by the accused to cause the death of her daughter. 3. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. Learned Magistrate accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution and found the accused guilty. Learned Session Judge made a thorough Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 3 resurvey of the entire evidence and confirmed the findings entered by the Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that there is no evidence to show that just prior to the incident the deceased was subjected to physical or mental torture by the accused and so the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sathya Narayanan Tiwari @ Jolly and another Vs. State of U.P. (2010 KHC 4829). The facts of the case were entirely different. Here, the accused was not charged for the offence punishable u/s 304 B or for the offence u/s 306 IPC whereas in the case cited supra, the accused were acquitted by the trial court. But the High Court convicted them u/s 304B and 498A IPC and also u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was in the context of the ingredients required to be Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 4 proved to attract offence u/s 304IPC, it was held that she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty and harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and such cruelty or harassment was shown to have been meted out to the women 'soon before her death'. It was in that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression, 'soon before death' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. Here the learned prosecutor would submit that the case of the prosecution and the evidence recorded is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty continuously and that cruelty continued till she decided to end her life and so it can be held that there is proof of existence of proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty and the concerned death. The decision in Eluri Raji Reddy and Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 5 others Vs. State of Delhi and others (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 479 also has no application to the facts of this case. There also, the accused was charged for offence u/s 304B and the prosecution wanted to rely upon the presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act. The facts of the case on hand are entirely different. For the very same reason the decision in Directorate of Education and others Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and others (2004) 4 Supreme Court cases 19 also is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Here the learned Magistrate has analysed the evidence bearing in mind the definition of cruelty as explained in Section 498A IPC. It was found that there was willful conduct on the part of the accused which was of such a nature to drive the woman (the deceased) to commit suicide. 5. The learned counsel would also submit that the evidence given by PW5 and PW6 is contradictory. PW7, the Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 6 14 year old son of the accused also deposed that accused was in the habit of quarrelling in the house daily after coming hot drink and used to drive him and his mother away from the house every day. PW8 who is the immediate neighbour also stated that every day there was quarrel in that house and the accused used to beat the deceased. It was stated that on some occasions PW8 had to intervene in the quarrel and thus the accused used to threaten him also. It was further stated that there was quarrel on 24th and 25th December also. In the light of the overwhelming evidence, the contention that there is no evidence to uphold the finding of cruelty entered against the husband is devoid of merit. The learned Session Judge has also appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and concurred with the finding of guilt. In the light of the unimpeachable evidence and circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt. Crl.R.P. No. 456 of 2004 7 6. The accused was sentenced only to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. In the nature of the offence committed the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate and which was confirmed by the learned Session Judge is just and proper. It requires no interference. In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate will execute the sentence without delay. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd