Ravi, S/o. Kannan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 145/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS-I , MANANTHAVADY** ## **CRA 182/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA REVISION PETITIONER/S:** RAVI, S/O.KANNAN AGED 41 YRS MANHOD VEEDU,PULINHAL,VELLAMUNDA AMSOM,, MANANTHAVADY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ELDHO PAUL SMT.TESSY JOSE1 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION,MANANTHAVADY PIN-670 645. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 2 ## **ORDER** The appeal is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.182/2007 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kalpetta (Appellate Court) confirming the judgment in C.C.No.145/2005 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mananthavady, finding the revision petitioner guilty and consequentially convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The revision petitioner was the 1[st] accused before the Trial Court. ## Brief relevant facts : 2. The prosecution case is that, the 1[st] accused was married to a lady named Devi (PW3) on 09.07.1989. The 2[nd] accused is the brother of the 1[st] accused. After marriage, the accused with a common intention used to physically and mentally subject PW3 to cruelty, demanding her to meet to their unlawful demand for more dowry. The 1[st] accused had misappropriated 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments that was entrusted to him as share of PW3 in her parental properties CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 3 by her relatives. On 16.06.2004, the 1[st] accused manhandled PW3 in the bathroom of their house and the 2[nd] accused continuously subjected PW3 to both mental and physical cruelty. Thus, the accused have committed the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 38 of IPC. 3. The Thottippalam Police registered Ext.P2 F.I. statement. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to Vellamunda Police and Crime No.137/2004 was registered. The Police after investigation filed the final report before the Trial Court. The accused appeared and denied the substance of accusation read over to them. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 in evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Code'). 4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, found the 2[nd] accused not guilty and acquitted him. However, the 1[st] accused was found guilty and he was CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 4 convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 1[st] accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 182/2007 before the Appellate Court. 6. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 7. It is challenging the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the present revision petition is filed. 8. Heard; Sri.Eldho Paul, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent -State. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the courts below have misread the records and have erroneously found the revision petitioner guilty. He submitted that the materials on record does not prove that the revision petitioner has CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 5 committed the offence. He further contended that, it was after 15 years of marriage that PW3 has alleged that the revision petitioner and his brother demanded dowry and subjected PW3 to cruelty which is improbable and unbelievable. He drew the attention of the Court to Ext.P6 wound certificate to establish that there was no injury caused to PW3 on the alleged date of assault,i.e., 16.06.2004. He also drew the attention of this Court to the testimonies of other witnesses, who have all testified that they have not witnessed the incident on 16.06.2004. He relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. And another** [2017 (4) KHC 163], **Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another** [2014 (3) KHC 69], and **Preeti Guptha and State of Jharkhand and another** [2010 KHC 4571] to canvass the position that the courts should be circumspect in convicting a person for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC because trivial matrimonial issues were being blown up beyond proportion. Finally, he CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 6 submitted that the revision petitioner was bedridden due to a paralytic stroke. He prayed that the revision petition may be allowed. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 – wife and children of the revision petitioner – was sufficient to conclude that the revision petitioner had committed the offence. PW3 had told PW2 /their neighbour as well as PW8 - the Doctor, that the revision petitioner had treated her with matrimonial cruelty. Therefore, the oral testimonies of PWs 3 to 5 corroborated with the oral testimonies of PWs 2 and 8 read with Ext.P6 wound certificate were sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. This Court may not interfere with findings of fact in a revision petition. Hence, the revision petition may be dismissed. 11. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned judgment. 12. The prosecution case is that, accused 1 and 2 had CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 7 subjected PW3 to mental and physical cruelty and harassed her with a view to coercing her to meet their unlawful demands for dowry. It is further alleged that, on 16.06.2004, the 1[st] accused assaulted PW3 in the bathroom. 13. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 – father of PW3, PW2 - a neighbour of the couple, PW3 - the defacto complainant herself, PWs 4 and 5 – the son and daughter of the couple, PW6 another neighbour of the couple, PW7 - the Police Officer who registered Ext.P5 FIR and PW8 - the Doctor who issued Ext.P6 wound certificate. Exts.P1 to P6 were proved through the said witnesses. 14. On the evaluation of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 8, it can be seen PWs 1, 2 and 6, who were also cited as eye witnesses, had turned hostile to the prosecution. They testified that they had not witnessed any incident. PW2- the neighbour – testified that PW3 had gone to her house after the incident. Similarly, PWs 4 and 5, the children of the couple, testified that there were incidents of manhandling CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 8 by the 1[st] accused on PW3 and on the ill- fated day they had seen their mother crying in the bathroom. However, they had not given any specific details of the alleged acts of harassment and mental and physical cruelty allegedly meted out by the 1[st] accused on PW3. 15. On an analysis of the oral testimony of PW3, it can be seen that she testified that she had happy married life with the 1[st] accused till the birth of the older child. It is after the birth of PW4, that the matrimonial issues started. She testified that the marital discord was principally for more dowry. Other than for the solitary testimony of PW3, there was no material on record to prove the aspect. 16. It is pertinent to point out that right from the date of marriage of the couple i.e., on 09.07.1989, till the date of the alleged incident on 19.06.2004, PW3 had not raised any complaint of harassment or cruelty against the accused. 17. Even on the date of alleged incident, that is 16.06.2004, her case is that, at about 4 a.m., the 1[st] CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 9 accused attempted to strangulate her with a cloth. No other person has witnessed the incident. Ext.P6 wound certificate issued by PW8, shows that there is no external injury on PW3. It is also relevant to note that though the alleged incident occurred on 16.06.2004 at 4 a.m., Ext.P6 was recorded on the following day i.e., on 17.06.2004 at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, Ext.P6 wound certificate does not help the prosecution in any manner. 18. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: ## **“498A.Husband or relative of husband of a woman** **subjecting her to cruelty-** Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. ## **Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty” means—** (a) any willful 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 **==> picture [15 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” (emphais supplied) 19. The above provision has two explanations. Going by the prosecution case the accused had harassed PW3 with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand for dowry, the prosecution case falls within explanation (b). 20. On a meticulous scrutiny of the testimonies of sterling witnesses namely PWs 3 to 5 and also the other witnesses, and the materials on record, I do not find a shred of evidence to be satisfied that the prosecution has proved the ingredients under Section 498A of the IPC. 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in **Rajesh Sharma and other** (supra) has observed as follows: **“** 14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 11 of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” ## 22. Likewise, in **Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar** ## **and another** (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: “6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” ## 23. Again, in **Preeti Guptha and another** (supra) the ## Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated the legal ## position as under: “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 12 the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 34. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 13 the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” ## 24. After relying on the above said judgments, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others** [2022 ## KHC 6153] observed as under : “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them”. ## 25. The materials placed on record, establish that the allegation made by PW3 arises out of the marital discord between the couple and does not satisfy the ingredients of a heinous offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It is to remembered that it is after 15 years of marriage and after the birth of two children that PW3 has alleged that the CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 14 accused harassed her and treated her with cruelty to get more dowry. 26. On a consideration of the impugned judgments, I hold that the courts below have misread the records and have found the 1[st] accused/revision petitioner guilty on mere surmises and conjectures, which is against the elementary principles that the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Instead, the courts below have convicted and sentenced the accused for the above offence, despite finding that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case. 27. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials on record and the law on the point, I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequentially, the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed in the revision petition by an order of acquittal. CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2011 15 ## In the result: - (i) The revision petition is allowed - (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below in Crl.Appeal No.187/2007 and C.C.No.147/2005 are set aside. - (iii) The revision petitioner/ 1[st] accused is found not guilty of the offence charged against him. - (iv) The revision petitioner/ 1[st] accused is acquitted and he is set at liberty, and the bail bonds executed by him and his sureties shall stand cancelled. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/05.12.23