IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1672 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.442/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------- T.P. PRIYANKA,W/O. PRATHEEPAN, AGED 24 YEARS, THOTTUMUKKATHU HOUSE, POST, KOYILANDY, CHERIYAMANGAD BEACH, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------- 1. PRADEEPAN,S/O. RAMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE,KURIYAD BEACH,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PRASANTH,S/O.RAMAN,AGED 31 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, KURIYAD BEACH, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SALINI, W/O.PRASATH, AGED 28 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, KURIYAD BEACH, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1672 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.4. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 married petitioner/defacto complainant on 24.4.2004. She alleged that respondent No.1 misappropriated her gold ornaments and committed criminal breach of trust by not returning the same. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 subjected her to cruelty. On 28.4.2004 respondent No.1 assaulted her. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and proved Ext.P1, the complaint preferred by the petitioner before court and which was forwarded to the police for investigation. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) respondent Nos. 1 to 3 denied the incriminating circumstances against them. Learned magistrate found that the charge is not proved and acquitted them under Section 248 (1) of the Code. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. 3. Learned counsel contends that court below has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses bearing in mind the poor socio-economic circumstances from which petitioner came. Crl.R.P.No.1672/2009 2 4. Petitioner when examined as PW1 stated that immediately after the marriage, respondent Nos.1 to 3 started subjecting her to cruelty demanding more dowry. PW2, Head constable, Vadakara police station registered the case. PW3 was examined to prove the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 proved Exts.D1 to D3. Ext.D1 is the copy of petition filed by respondent No.1 in the Family Court on 18.4.2005 stating that petitioner left the matrimonial home within a week after marriage. Respondent No.1 claimed that petitioner was having mental imbalance even before the marriage which was fraudulently suppressed from him at the time of marriage and therefore he sought annulment of the marriage. Ext.D2 shows that an exparte order was passed in favour of respondent No.1 in the petition for annulment of marriage. Evidence of PW1 is that she left the matrimonial home on 1.5.2004. She admitted that she got notice from the Family Court in O.P.No.264 of 2005. But Ext.P1, private complaint was filed only on 26.4.2005. Evidence shows that it was after respondent No.1 filed Ext.D1, petition for annulment of marriage that petitioner chose to prefer the private complaint. According to PW1, respondent No.1 demanded dowry on 28.4.2004, ie. , just a few days after the marriage and from then onwards respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been subjecting her to cruelty. But the complaint is seen filed only after one year and two months after the marriage and that too, after respondent No.1 filed a petition for annulment of marriage. 5. Another witness examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged cruelty is PW4 who is the mother of petitioner. Her case is that PW1 asked her Crl.R.P.No.1672/2009 3 Rs.50,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1. Learned magistrate observed that there is no such plea in Ext.P1, complaint. Learned magistrate has considered these facts and circumstances to hold that evidence of PWs 1 and 4 by itself is not sufficient to warrant conviction of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. Interference by the revisional court with an order of acquittal is called for and permissible only when it is a case of gross injustice resulting from the violation of some fundamental principles of law or procedure or when the order/judgment under challenge is palpably wrong. No such situation arises in the case on hand. Therefore this revision against acquittal of respondent No.1 to 3 cannot be entertained. Resultantly, revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks