Praveen Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA,** ## **1944** **CRL.A NO. 2264 OF 2007** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2007 IN S.C.NO.1003 OF 2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II,** ## **KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:** - **1 PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN** - **2 T.SAVITHRI, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN** - **3 PRAJOSH KUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN** **ALL ARE RESIDING AT PARAMBATHKATTIL HOUSE, NELLIKKODE AMSOM DESOM.** **BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** 2 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.11.2022, THE COURT ON 18.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, as per the judgment dated 05.11.2007. Challenging legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The 1[st] appellant married Smt.Lajitha on 28.05.1995. PWs.1 and 2 are the mother and father of Smt.Lajitha. Appellants 2 and 3 are the mother and brother of the 1[st] appellant. On 05.02.1999 at 1.30 p.m., Smt.Lajitha committed suicide at her parental home. She poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. She succumbed to the injuries sustained. The prosecution alleged that Smt.Lajitha committed suicide as a result of the cruelty and harassment meted out on her by the appellants in furtherance of their common intention. 4 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 3. Upon framing charge for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., the appellants were tried. PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When the evidence of the prosecution was concluded, the appellants were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. They denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in evidence. They also stated that they were innocent. The evidence let in by them is Ext.D1 to D3, which are the contradictions in the previous statements of PWs.2 and 4. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and submissions on both sides, found the appellants not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. However, they were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. 4. This appeal was admitted on 21.11.2007. Sentence imposed on the appellants was suspended and they were ordered to be released on bail on executing bonds. 5 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The instances of cruelty meted out on deceased Smt.Lajitha are that appellants insisted her to bring money from her parents, she was not allowed to take water from the pipe, she was used to be harassed saying that the dishes she cooked were not tasty and poured curry on her face by appellants 2 and 3. Another instance of cruelty alleged is that the 1[st] appellant developed an extra-marital relationship with another lady. 7. PW1 is the mother and PW2 is the father of Smt.Lajitha. PWs.1 and 2 deposed before court that their daughter was treated cruelly at her matrimonial home and throughout she has been harassed by not only the 1[st] appellant, her husband, but also the other appellants. According to them, on 29.01.1999 Smt.Lajitha along with her two children came to their house saying that the husband insisted her to bring Rs.25,000/-, which he required to purchase an autorickshaw. They could raise only Rs.5,000/-. 6 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 She was asked to return to her matrimonial home with that money on 06.02.1999. But on 05.02.1999, at about 1.30 p.m. she committed suicide. Both of them deposed that the appellants were mounting enormous pressure on Smt. Lajitha to bring money and as she and her parents could not meet the demand, she committed suicide. 8. PWs1 and 2 testified that the 1[st] appellant had an extramarital relationship and Smt.Lajitha was used to be physically assaulted by the appellants. PW4 is a neighbour of the appellants. He deposed in court about a specific instance of cruelty, that about two months before Smt.Lajitha committing suicide, he went to the house of the appellants hearing a cry and then he saw Smt.Lajitha sitting near the washing stone behind that house. She told PW4 that appellants 2 and 3 poured curry on her face. 9. The crime was registered on the basis of the statement given by PW3, who is a cousin of Smt. Lajitha. He went to the police station and gave Ext.P1 statement on 06.02.1999. On the basis of Ext.P1, crime for unnatural death 7 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 was registered by PW5. Ext.P2 is the F.I.R. In the ensued investigation, PW6 concluded that an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. was committed by the appellants, and therefore Ext.P4 report was submitted before the court. PW7, the Executive Magistrate, prepared the inquest report, Ext.P5, on the cadaver of Smt.Lajitha. PW9 submitted Ext.P7 report to add Section 306 of the I.P.C. He completed the investigation and laid the final report. 10. PW10 is a Deputy Police Surgeon. He held autopsy on the body of Smt.Lajitha. After the postmortem examination, he concluded that Smt.Lajitha died due to burn injuries. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the evidence was insufficient to find the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The further findings are that the death of Smt.Lajitha was proved to be suicide, and the evidence was sufficient prove that she was treated cruelly and harassed with a view to extract money from her parents. Accordingly, the appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. 8 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 12. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that when the incidents of cruelty spoken to by PWs.1, 2 and 4 are taken separately could not be that grave, but together they constitute cruelty and harassment sufficient to drive Smt.Lajitha to commit suicide. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the aforesaid finding itself is enough to reverse the judgment of conviction. The learned counsel would contend that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the evidence brought on record is totally insufficient to establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and therefore there cannot be a conviction. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out a few contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and canvas to reverse the finding of guilt on the part of the appellants. The version of PW1 that she did not know demand of money by the appellants till Smt.Lajitha committed suicide and the details deposed to by PW2 in regard to the demand of 9 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 money are stated to be contradictory. A perusal of their evidence would show such contradictions are not duly proved. Though Ext.D1 was brought out in the evidence of PW2, the father as a contradiction, the same is not related to the aforesaid aspects or any material aspect. So those statements suggested as contradictions cannot have the effect of discrediting their veracity. 14. Truth worthiness of PW4 is assailed, pointing out more than one reason. He admitted that he is a relative of PWs.1 and 2 and had enmity towards the appellants. During cross-examination PW4 admitted that though he was engaged initially, the appellants avoided him from the job of plucking coconuts, which is attributed as a reason for his having grudge towards the appellants. While he stated in court that before two months he was avoided, what he stated in police was that 5 years back, he was avoided from plucking coconuts from the property of the appellants. He also contradicted about the place at which he saw Smt.Lajitha found crying following the alleged incident of pouring curry on her body. 10 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 Before police he stated to have seen Smt.Lajitha crying sitting inside the house, whereas in court he stated that she was sitting near the washing stone behind the house. Exts.D2 and D3 are the said contradictions. Slashing curry at the deceased is one of the incidents of cruelty alleged against the appellants. When PW4 stated discrepently about such a material fact, his credibility becomes doubtful. Regarding that incident there is absolutely no other evidence. In such circumstances the version of PW4 cannot be relied on to find that such an incident occurred. 15. Apart from the demand for money, PWs.1 and 2 stated about a few instances of cruelty and harassment. But they have no direct knowledge about such incidents. The allegations like, the appellants used to harass her saying she did not know how to cook dishes, her inefficiency in other household acts, etc. and the extramarital relationship of the first appellant had come to their knowledge only from Smt.Lajitha. However, as regards the incident of demanding money, the version of PWs.1 and 2 is that Smt.Lajitha came 11 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 to their house saying that her husband was insisting on getting Rs.25,000/- since he wanted to purchase an autorickshaw. They had involved in it and tried their level best to raise fund. It is true that an inconsistency was brought in the evidence of PW1 that she knew about the demand for money only after the death of their daughter. But on going through the entire evidence of PW1, it is evident that such an inconsistency occurred due to her inadvertence. It is her categoric version that after her daughter coming back demanding money, there were efforts to raise funds, but they could raise only Rs.5,000/-. It is the further version of PW1 that they proposed to raise the balance amount of Rs.20,000/soon and at that stage on 05.02.1999 her daughter committed suicide. Thus PW1 deposed quite cogently with respect to the demand for money and the efforts put in by her and PW2 to raise money. In the light of that version, the socalled contradiction cannot discredit her veracity. Further, PW2 also deposed quite in terms of the version of PW1 regarding the demand for money which ultimately impelled Smt.Lajitha 12 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 to commit suicide. Having regard to the nature of that evidence I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly trusted PWs.1 and 2 and relied upon their evidence. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants by placing reliance on the decision in **Wasim v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 7 SCC 435]** would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 even if believed, is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the evidence would not establish neither mental nor physical cruelty on the part of the appellants, and therefore a conviction on the basis of the available evidence is not possible. Explanation to Section 498-A of the I.P.C., which defines ‘cruelty’, has two limbs. Clause (a) explains that any wilful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman amounts to cruelty. Clause (b) explains that harassment of the women, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any 13 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 person related to her to meet any unlawful demand or any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, it is cruelty. In **Wasim** (supra), the accused was convicted for the acts of willful conduct in connection with demand of dowry, which had driven the deceased to commit suicide. But, the Apex Court held that without a detailed discussion on the evidence on record and having the said allegations not been proved, a conviction under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. could not have been recorded by the High Court. It was observed that the trial court found that there was no material on record to show that there was demand of dowry, and therefore it was incumbent upon the High Court to consider the evidence in detail before convicting the accused finding that there was demand for dowry. 17. In the instant case, the facts are different and the aforesaid proposition of law has no application. The facts proved through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is that there was a demand for Rs.25,000/- by the 1[st] appellant, the husband of 14 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 could not meet that demand and, they could arrange only Rs.5,000/-. Smt.Lajitha could not survive the situation, and therefore she committed suicide. Since Smt.Lajitha returning on 29.01.1999 to her parental home following the demand for money by the 1[st] appellant, she has been there with PWs.1 and 2. Through intense efforts they raised from their relatives Rs.5,000/- and they tried to send Smt.Lajitha back to her matrimonial home with that money. It is their further version that they assured her to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- soon. But she could not face the situation and committed suicide. Following such a demand for money, it was PW1, who went to the house of the appellants and brought Smt.Lajitha to her house, a week back. Thus, this is a case where PWs.1 and 2 spoke about those facts from their personal knowledge and information which is primary evidence and can be acted upon. 18. The charge levelled against the appellants is that they together persuaded Smt.Lajitha to obtain Rs.25,000/from her parents and meted out cruelty and harassment on 15 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 her. As pointed out above, apart from the demand for money and related harassment, there is no direct and reliable evidence regarding the other instances of cruelty or harassment. Also, there is no evidence to establish complicity of appellants 2 and 3 in the demand of money and related harassment of Smt.Lajitha. Thus, the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the 1[st] appellant insisted the deceased to obtain Rs.25,000/- from her parents and she could not get that money. She, unable to surmount the stress the 1[st] appellant thereby imposed on her, committed suicide on 05.02.1999. 19. PW10, the police surgeon deposed in court regarding the cause of death. Ext.P6 certificate contains the procedure of autopsy and his opinion. As a result of the burn injuries, she died. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the inquest report, Ext.P5 prepared by PW7 proved that Smt.Lajitha poured kerosene herself and committed suicide. The cause of death of Smt.Lajtha is further established by the evidence of PW10 coupled with Ext.P6, the postmortem 16 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 certificate. The reason for her committing suicide is proved to be the harassment meted out by the 1[st] appellant for coercing her to get money from her parents. Accordingly, I hold the learned Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the 1[st] appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. after due appreciation of the evidence and liable to be confirmed. The conviction and sentence of appellants 2 and 3, however, are not sustainable either in law or on facts. They are therefore entitled to be acquitted. 20. The 1[st] appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Considering the age of the 1[st] appellant, nature of the offence and the delay in completing the proceedings, the sentence is liable to be modified and reduced. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The appellants 2 and 3 are acquitted and they are set at liberty. The 1[st] appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The period during which he was in custody in connection with the case will be 17 Crl.Appeal No.2264 of 2007 set off against the term of sentence. Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr