IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 1853 of 2005()
1. DINESAN, S/O.KARI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
K. THANKAPPAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.1853 OF 2005
---------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
The appellant, the 1st accused, in S.C.No.108/2005 on the
file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur, faced trial along with
the 2nd accused, the mother of the appellant, for the of
offences punishable under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of
the I.P.C and Section 306 of the I.P.C. The prosecution
allegation against the appellant and his mother, the 2nd accused,
is that the appellant and the 2nd accused used to ill-treat the wife
of the appellant, deceased Sadina, and due to the willful conduct
of the appellant and the 2nd accused, the said Sadina has
committed suicide on 23.8.2004 and thereby committed the
above offences. To prove the case against the appellant and the
2nd accused, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 14 and relied
on Exts. P1 to P10. Mos 1 and 2 were also produced. On
closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant and the 2nd
accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The appellant denied the prosecution
allegation levelled against him. Relying on the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, the trial
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 2
court found the appellant guilty under Section 498 A and he was
convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/=, in default of payment of
fine, further term of simple imprisonment for a period of six
months more. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under
Section 306 of I.P.C and the 2nd accused was acquitted of all
the charges levelled against her. The conviction and sentence
ordered against the appellant are now assailed in this appeal.
2. This Court heard both the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant Sri. P. Chandrasekharan, has
argued three points before this Court. Firstly the learned
counsel submits that the trial court committed serious error in
believing the prosecution witnesses to find the appellant guilty
of the charges. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that the
trial court ought not have believed the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, who are the close relatives of deceased Sadina, and
thirdly, the counsel for the appellant submits that even if the
entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses is accepted, it is
not reasonable to hold that the appellant had committed an
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 3
offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. The counsel also
submits that the sentence now awarded against the appellant is
excessive.
3. To prove the prosecution case against the appellant and
the other accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of
Pws1, 3 & 5 and also the evidence of the investigating officers.
PW1, brother of the deceased Sadina, had given the evidence
before the court that marriage of his sister Sadina with the
appellant was conducted on 7.5.2003 as per the custom
prevalent among the community. Further PW1 had stated that
after the marriage of his sister, Sadina, she was residing in the
matrimonial house and she became pregnant and thereafter she
was brought to the house of his uncle for delivery. Further, this
witness has stated that since her parents are residing in
Gundallur, himself and his sister Sadina, were residing in the
house of his uncle, PW2, at Koppam. Further PW1 had given
evidence before the court that after the delivery of Sadina, she
was gone back to the house of the appellant at Annara and after
she left the house of his uncle, he had received a phone
message on the day of the incident informing that his sister was
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 4
admitted in a hospital at Tirur, and he went to the hospital and
it is revealed that his sister Sadina is already dead and
thereafter he had went to Tirur Police Station and given
Ext.P1 F.I Statement to the Dy.S.P. According to this witness,
at the time of the marriage of his sister, Sadina, gold ornaments
worth about 10 soverings and an amount of Rs.15,000/= were
given to the appellant as dowry and when his sister was
brought for delivery, it is seen that, no ornaments were on the
body of her sister. PW1 has further stated that his sister had
already told that all the ornaments were taken by the appellant
and he had sold it for his own purpose. When she came to the
house of his uncle for delivery, she had having only her tally
chain and during the period at which his sister Sadina was at
the house of his uncle, the appellant came to that house and
asked for her tally chain also, but that was not given by his
sister. At that time his sister told him that she was being
tortured by the appellant and his mother, the 2nd accused.
Further, he had stated that his sister told him that she being ill
treated from six to eight months of the marriage itself and she
used to complain about the ill-treatment being made by the
appellant and his mother to him. This witness has further stated
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 5
that the appellant used to quarrel with his sister, Sadina,
frequently doubting of her chastity and also the reason that
people from outside used to come to the house to watch T.V as
that was disliked by the appellant. The evidence of this
witness is corroborated with the evidence of PW2, who is the
uncle of deceased Sadina. He had given evidence before the
court that both Sadina and PW1 were residing in his house at
Koppam. PW2 also had stated about the marriage of deceased
Sadina with the appellant and further he had stated that Sadina
had told him that the appellant was regularly quarrelling with
her and the appellant was also ill-treating deceased Sadina on
the reason that people from outside used to come to the house
to watch T.V and he was protesting such visit by others. This
witness also speaks about the ornaments which had given to
Sadina at the time of marriage and the same were sold by the
appellant. PW2 has further stated that even after the delivery,
Sadina was reluctant to go with the appellant as she had
complained of regular ill treatment being made by the
appellant and his mother. Further he had stated that Sadina
committed suicide only due to the ill treatment of the appellant
and his mother. This witness also had stated about the phone
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 6
message received by PW1 on the date of the incident regarding
admission of Sadina in the hospital. PW3 is one among the other
relatives of deceased Sadina who was also residing at Koppam.
This witness is none other than the sister of the mother of the
deceased Sadina and she had given evidence before the court
that Sadina told her several times that the appellant ill treated
her on the reason of people coming from outside to watch T.V
and further this witness had stated that Sadina had told her
several times that the appellant used to quarrel with her some
more other reasons. Further the evidence of this witness also
corroborated with the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 with regard to
the delivery and the incident happened when the appellant
came to the house of PW2 asking for the tally chain of
deceased Sadina. PW5 is another witness, who was the class
mate and friend of deceased Sadina and this witness was
examined to prove that whenever Sadina used to come to the
house of PW2, Sadina met her and Sadina had told her that her
husband, the appellant, used to harass her and ill treat her
doubting the chastity of Sadina. This witness has further
stated that Sadina had told her that the appellant used to
quarrel with her regularly and because of that, she was not
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 7
willing to go back to the house of appellant after the delivery.
Though these witnesses were cross examined by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, their evidences with
regard to the ill treatments being carried on by the appellant
have not been shattered or their evidences have not been
discredited. Hence the trial court fully believed these witnesses
and found that there is evidence to show that the appellant wed
to ill treat deceased Sadina and because of his continuous
willful conduct and harassment, deceased, Sadina was drived to
commit suicide. In this contest it has to be seen that though
defence attempted to prove that after the delivery of Sadina she
was disappointed and depressed so as to commit suicide, no
evidence has been adduced but, only a general suggestion put to
PW12 the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of
deceased Sadina. But that by itself is not a reason to doubt the
prosecution case proved through the evidence of witness.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial court is fully
justified in believing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
to find that the appellant had committed the offence under
Section 498 A of I.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel
that there is no specific evidence before the court to show that
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 8
the appellant had committed series of acts which drived
Sadina to commit suicide as contemplated under Section 498 A
of I.P.C. To substantiate this arguments, the learned counsel
placed before this Court a judgment of the Apex Court reported
in Girdhar Shankar Tawade v State of Maharashtra (AIR
2002 SC 2078). This Court had gone through the above
judgment of the Apex Court and it is seen that the Apex Court
had considered the factual situation in which the accused was
charge sheeted by the police under Section 498 A and Section
306 I.P.C. There were instances of similar ill treatment on the
part of the husband and in such a situation, the Apex Court held
that to prove an offence under Section 498 A, series of actions
involving ill treatment or willful conduct should be proved.
Comparing with the evidence of the case in hand with the case
dwelt by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the
evidence of Pws 1 to 5 would show that there were series of
instances of ill treatment on the part of the appellant and only
because of this ill treatment and willful conducts and the
attitude of the appellant, deceased Sadina was fed up and she
was tried to put an end of her life. If so, the failure on the part
of the prosecution witness to prove specific instances of ill
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 9
treatment and non complaining about such instances are not
fatal to the prosecution case at all. It was come out in evidence
that during the marriage an amount of Rs.15,000/= and
ornaments worth for ten soverings were given to deceased
Sadina. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 would show that when
Sadina was brought to the house of PW2 for delivery she was
wearing only her tally chain. Further, it is revealed that even
during that time, the appellant came to the house of PW2 asking
Sadina to give the tally chain for his own use and there
occurred a quarrel between the deceased Sadina and the
appellant. If so, the findings of the trial court with regard to the
continuous ill treatments on deceases Sadina by the appellant is
on evidence.
4. Hence, this Court is of the view that the findings of the trial
court with regard to the commission of the offence by the
appellant do not require any interference. Further it is to be
noted that the evidence of other witnesses who are the
neighbours of both deceased Sadina and the appellant would
show that there were frequent quarrel between the appellant
and deceased Sadina. In this contest evidences of Pws 6 and 7
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 10
are also relevant though PW7 is not fully supporting the
prosecution case. When PW6 cross examined by the
prosecution, he had stated before the investigating officer that
he used to hear the quarrel between the appellant and deceased
Sadina and this was usual from the house of the appellant.
PW7 though declared hostile to the prosecution had admitted
that the appellant was ill treating the deceased Sadina on the
ground that people from outside used to come to the house to
watch T.V programmes. This witness though had not supported
the statement given to the investigating officer, his evidence
would also show that the married life of deceased Sadina with
the appellant was not cordial or peaceful. From the evidence
now adduced, this Court is not in a position to hold that the
evidence given by Pws 1 to 3 and 5 cannot taken as an
ordinary wear and tear of a family life which would not drive
the deceased to commit suicide. But the evidence is otherwise.
5. With regard to the sentence awarded against the
appellant it has to be seen that the trial court had considered
this question and found that the appellant is aged below 30
and deceased Sadina committed suicide within one and half
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 11
years of her marriage and a child was also born in their
wedlock. Now it is revealed that the child is with the
relatives of deceased Sadina. It is revealed that the appellant
had given back few of the ornaments after the death of
Sadina,. Further it has to be seen that the social background
of both Sadina and the appellant has also to be considered
while imposing penalty on the appellant.
6. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court
is of the view that simple imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs.2,000/= and in default of payment of fine further
simple imprisonment of three months will meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, confirming the conviction entered
against the appellant under Section 498 A, the sentence
awarded against him is reduced to two years simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/= with default sentence
of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment more.
With the above modification of the sentence, in all other
respects the appeal stands dismissed. It is also revealed
that the appellant is committed to prison and undergoing
imprisonment from 24.8.2004 and is not released on bail.
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 12
The appellant is now completed imprisonment for more than
two years and four months.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the entire period of
imprisonment is limited to the period already undergone by
the appellant. Consequently, the appellant/accused in
S.C.No.108/2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Tirur, shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be
kept in jail in connection with any other case.
K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.
cl
CRL.A.NO.1853/2005 13