Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 24 October, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 162 of 2006
------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN CRA 26/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, MANJERI
DATED 24-10-2005
JUDGMENT IN CC 236/2001 of J.M.F.C.-II, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 16-12-2003
---------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 1 & 2/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2 :-
----------------------------------------------------------
1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KORU,
KAYINISSERI VEEDU, UPPUKULAM,
EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. SANKARAN, S/O.KORU,
KAYINISSERI VEEDU, UPPUKULAM,
EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN
SMT.PRAVITHA A.R
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-
----------------------------------------------
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MELATTUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.162 of 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of July 2018
ORDER
The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.236/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. They are brothers. They and their mother faced prosecution on a complaint of the wife of the 1 st accused alleging matrimonial cruelty and bigamy. She was married by him on 12.5.1988, and she has been residing separately since 24.10.1997. Her complaint alleged that she had been mentally and physically harassed and tortured by her husband, the brother-in-law, and the mother-in-law by demanding more dowry and ornaments, and even otherwise, that on 24.10.1997, she was brutally assaulted by them, due to which, she sustained some injuries, and after such an assault, she was driven out from the matrimonial home. After eight months, she made complaint before the police.
2. The three accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P3 Crl.R.P. No.162 of 2006 -: 2 :- documents in the trial court. All the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that the victim had never been mentally or physically harassed by them. In defence, the 1 st accused examined himself as DW1 with the permission of the court, and he also proved the Ext.D1 document. This is the copy of the maintenance claim made by the de facto complainant before the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 494 IPC, and accordingly, all the accused were acquitted of the said offence. But the three accused were found guilty under Section 498A IPC, and they were convicted thereunder with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and the 3 rd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2003, the accused approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.A. No.26/2004. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-III, Manjeri found the 3rd accused not guilty, and accordingly, she was acquitted in Crl.R.P. No.162 of 2006 -: 3 :- appeal. But the conviction against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was confirmed by the appellate court. However, the sentence was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for six months each, and in lieu of such reduction, they were sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/- each. Now, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. Of the ten witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 is the de facto complainant, and her parents were examined as PW2 and PW3. PW4 and PW5 are the persons, who intervened in the dispute regarding ornaments, PW6 is the uncle of the complainant, and PW7 is a neighbour of the complainant. PW6 and PW7 were examined to prove the alleged second marriage. But their evidence did not contain anything for a finding under Section 494 IPC. Any way, as regards the offence under Section 494 IPC, all the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The main evidence on Section 498A IPC is that of PW1 to PW3. But PW2 and PW3 have no direct knowledge about the alleged incidents of mental or physical harassment. Their versions are based on the statements given by their daughter. Crl.R.P. No.162 of 2006 -: 4 :-
5. PW1 has given evidence substantiating her statements in the Ext.P1 complaint. Her grievance is that she had been mentally and physically harassed by the accused. But, her allegations are mainly against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Her evidence does not contain the details of the mental or physical harassment made by her husband and the brother-in-law. It is the definite case of the complainant that on 24.10.1997, she was assaulted at the matrimonial home by the accused, and she was driven out on that day. On the next day, she was admitted at the hospital, and she continued there for treatment for three days. The prosecution has not produced any material to prove such a hospital admission, or such an assault. Though she was driven out in October, 1997, she filed complaint alleging matrimonial cruelty only in August 1998. When asked about this delay, she stated like this; b