IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.A.No. 834 of 2001(C) ------------------------ CC.9/1995 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT -------------- STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SUMANGALA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. BHASKARA SURESH JYOTHI JYOTHI NIVAS, T.C. II/2107 KANAKA NAGAR, NANTHANCODE WARD KAWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. BHARATHY VASANTHY, -DO - - DO - 3. KRISHNA BHASKARAN, - DO- - DO - ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R1TO3 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.Appeal No.834 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram dated September 6, 2000 in C.C.No.9/1995 acquitting the accused 1 to 3 of the charge under Section 498A of IPC. 2. PW1 is the defacto complainant. She was doing her last year MBBS course during that time. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the lower court in brief is this: The first accused married PW1 on September 5, 1991 and were residing in the house of first respondent. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents of first accused. While so, the accused persons started ill- treating PW1 and subjected her to cruelty with a view to coercing her and her parents to meet certain unlawful demands for property and valuable securities. PW1 passed MBBS Course on 1/7/1993. She delivered a child on 4/2/1994. On 24/02/1994 while she was feeding her baby, she was manhandled by first accused. On 26/02/1994 she Crl.Appeal No.834/2001 2 was taken to her home by her parents. 3. PW1 filed Ext.P5 complaint before the lower court under Section 498 A of IPC which was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to Museum Police station for investigation. PW12 the Station House Officer there registered the case against the accused persons. PW13 the then C.I. of Police conducted investigation and laid the charge before the lower court. 4. The accused persons on appearance before the lower court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 498 A of IPC. PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked on the side of prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused persons denied the incident. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ext.D1 to D49 were marked on their side. On an appreciation of evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused persons not guilty and acquitted them of the charge under Section 498 A of IPC. State has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the lower court. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused persons. 6. The Public Prosecutor argued that the judgment of the Crl.Appeal No.834/2001 3 lower court is against the evidence on record and that the learned Magistrate should have believed the evidence of PW1 and her parents PW2 and PW3 and found the accused persons guilty under Section 498 A of IPC. The learned counsel for accused persons on the other hand supported the judgment of the lower court. 7. The following point arises for consideration : Whether the finding of the lower court that there is no acceptable evidence to show that accused persons subjected PW1 to cruelty and consequently acquitting them of the charge under Section 498 A of IPC can be sustained ? 8. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 and PW3 are her parents. They testified regarding the ill-treatment of PW1 by the accused persons. 9. PW4 to 7 and 9 are the independent witnesses. The marriage proposal of first accused came through PW4. PW5 is the maid servant of PW1. She would say that the first accused and PW1 used to quarrel. PW6 is a resident of Kanaka Nagar Colony where the accused were residing. He used to hear PW1 and first accused quarrelling. PW7 was the Panchayath Member of SNDP Sakha during Crl.Appeal No.834/2001 4 that period. PW9 is an employee of Telecom Department. According to him, PW1 told him about the cruel treatment of PW1 by the first accused. PW8 has proved the Marriage Certificate Ext.P7. PW 10 and 11 are witnesses to the Mahazar Ext.P8 and P9 respectively. PW12 and 13 are investigating officers. 10. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused and I have examined the impugned judgment of lower court carefully and the evidence of PW1 to PW13 in depth and in detail. The evidence of PW1 to 7 and 9 does not prove the alleged ill-treatment of PW1 by the accused. There is no acceptable evidence to show that accused persons have subjected PW1 to cruelty. Therefore, I confirm the finding of the lower court that prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons have subjected PW1 to cruelty. It follows that the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.Appeal No.834/2001 5