IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 513 of 2002()
1. STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K. RAJESH, S/O. SADANANDAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :21/05/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
CRL.A.NO.513 OF 2002-B
------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of
acquittal in S.C.No.48/1996 of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Thalassery. The accused was charge sheeted by the police
for having committed the offences punishable under Sections
498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief history
of the case would reveal that the deceased Shilaja was
married by the accused on 26.5.1994. On 19.10.1994 at
about 9.30 a.m she had committed suicide by setting ablaze
her body by pouring kerosene after closing the door. The
prosecution would contend that the death is on account of
the cruelty meted out to her by the husband. The accused
denied everything and the trial court on appreciation of
Exts.P1 to P18 and the evidence of PWs 1 to 25 came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
of the accused. It is against that decision, State has come
up in appeal.
2. The point arises for determination is whether the court
Crl.A.No.513/02 2
below has erred in arriving at a decision that the accused is
not guilty.
Point:
3. The unfortunate couple got married on 26.5.1994. At
the time of the marriage, the husband was aged 21 years
and the wife was aged 19 years. The matrimonial life did
not last long and within a period of five months, the wife had
committed suicide, for which the husband is now charge
sheeted under Section 498(A) and 306 of the I.P.C. The
reason projected by the prosecution for the suicide is that
the husband had pledged or sold the gold ornaments given
to the wife at the time of her marriage and that has resulted
in the mishap. The defence is totally a denial of the same.
Pw1 is the first informant and his evidence does not implicate
anything against the accused. PWs 2 and 4 are the parents
of the deceased and, according to them, 8 = soverings of
gold, which was given at the time of the marriage, had been
either pledged or sold by the accused and the newly married
couple came to their house with a demand of Rs.5,000/= and
as the parents could not do it, husband of the deceased’s
Crl.A.No.513/02 3
sister gave them a gold chain of 1 = soverings, which,
according to them, was also sold. PW4 also speaks on the
very same line. PW3, who is examined to prove the reason
for the suicide of Shilaja, did not support the prosecution
and he had turned hostile to the prosecution. PW5, elder
sister of the deceased speaks about giving of gold chain of
1 = soverings. PWs 6 and 7, who were examined with an
intend to prove guilt of the accused, did not support the
prosecution at all and they did not depose that the accused
was a drunkard or player of cards. The trial court had
elaborately considered the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5,
who had supported the prosecution case. The trial court
observed that Shilaja at no point of time had complained
to PWs 2, 4 or 5 that her husband had treated her with
cruelty. It has also come out in evidence that there was no
demand for dowry or gold ornaments at the time of the
marriage and it was given only voluntarily by the parents
to the daughter. The only piece of evidence which may militate
against the accused is that the materials that are available
according to the court below is that the husband had dealt
Crl.A.No.513/02 4
with the gold ornaments of the wife after the marriage. It
has also come out in evidence from DW1, who is the uncle of
the accused, that amount has been borrowed for the purpose
of conducting the marriage. But there is no iota of evidence
even from the parents of the deceased to the effect that
the deceased Shilaja had at any point of time complained
them about the misappropriation of the gold ornaments or
that the husband has treated her with cruelty. Not only that,
the evidence in this case is to the effect that the mother of the
accused as well as uncle and wife of the accused along with
whom Shilaja lived had at no point of time harassed the
deceased Shilaja. It is also found by the trial court that
even after selling or pledging her gold ornaments, Shilaja did
not make any accusation against the accused when she
visited her house. The court below also pointed out that
when she was under treatment of the doctor after the
incident, then also she had not stated before the doctor that
her husband is responsible for the death.
4. So, on an overall analysis of the entire materials,
the trial court came to the conclusion that there is no
Crl.A.No.513/02 5
evidence to show that the husband has treated the wife with
cruelty so as to attract Section 498 (A) of the Act and in the
absence of proof of guilt under Section 498 (A), the
presumption under Section 113 A of the Act could not be
drawn. So, an analysis of the entire materials only leads me
also to the conclusion that the trial court had appreciated
all the facts in the correct perspective and had arrived at a
decision that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the
guilt of the accused. Therefore, I do not find any error
committed by the trial court which requires interference at
the hands of this Court.
Therefore, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same
is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
Crl.A.No.513/02 6