Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 331 of 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 239/2014 of III ADDL.D.C., KOLLAM
DATED 11-02-2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 65/2013 of J.M.F.C., PARAVOOR
CRIME NO. 1434/2010 OF Paravoor Police Station , Kollam
APPELLANT/S:
RADHAKRISHNAN, C.NO.782, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM
BY ADV. ADV. A G ADITYA SHENOY(STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DGP, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
M.K PUSHPALATHA PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
4.10.2018, THE COURT ON 10/10/2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The sole accused who stands convicted for offences under section Crl.Appeal No.331/2016 2 498A of IPC in SC 239/2014 of Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam and is presently undergoing sentence of RI for three years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months, has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the prosecution, the accused married one Renuka Devi on 19/6/1988. A son was born in the matrimonial relationship. Subsequently, he married another woman. Two daughters were born in that matrimonial relation. It was alleged that, the accused used to harass Renuka Devi and son, mentally and physically. He used to coerce her to permit the residence of the daughters with her. On 6/12/2010 at 2.30 p.m. he allegedly quarreled with Renuka Devi and doubted her chastity. He also directed her to go and die. She committed suicide at some time in between 11.45 p.m.of 10/12/2010 and 7.am of 11/12/2010. Crime was registered and the accused faced trial for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 IPC.
3. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exts.P1 and P14 were marked. There was no defence evidence. The trial court on the basis of the evidence let in, found the accused guilty under section 498A and sentenced him He was acquitted for offence under section 306 IPC.
4. This is challenged in appeal. Heard Mr.A.G.Aditya Shenoy for the appellant, who on state brief, very effectively marshalled all the Crl.Appeal No.331/2016 3 contentions in favour of the appellant. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, none of the ingredient of offence is made out. It was also contended that, in the light of the acquittal of the accused under section 306 IPC, that benefit should have been automatically extended in the case of offence alleged under section 498A also. It was contended that the death of the wife had no rational nexus with any alleged acts of harassment.
6. To support the prosecution allegation, the prosecution relied on the testimony of the mother of the deceased as PW1, the son as PW2, the 2nd wife as PW3 and a relative as PW6. PW1 in her evidence deposed that accused used to harass the victim physically and mentally. It was alleged that the accused used to insist for residence of the children in 2nd marriage with the victim. However, the victim suffered every harassment, believing that he will improve. PW2 in his evidence said that accused used to beat him and the mother. He used to bring the children in the second marriage to his house. He, every time used to direct the victim to go and die. Victim died due to the harassment of the accused. He came to know that she was harassed on 6th. PW3 is the second wife of accused. Her version was that accused used to harass her also. PW4 is the sister of the victim. She deposed that she had seen injuries on the body of Crl.Appeal No.331/2016 4 the victim. Victim had revealed that husband had beaten her. PW6, who is also a relative of the victim, had deposed that, victim had revealed to her that accused used to beat her.
7. Evidently, there are materials to conclude that the victim was harassed by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused contended that even if the above version is true, evidently nobody had a case that it was in connection with demand for dowry. Relying on the decision in Appukuttan v State of Kerala(2018 (2) KHC
262) and Santhosh v. State of Maharastra ( 17 KHC 4794) it was contended that every type of harassment or cruelty would not attract section 498A. To attract section 498A, it must be established that cruelty and harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide. It was held in the latter decision that, there must be reasonable nexus between cruelty and suicide in order to attribute the offence of cruelty. If accused was consuming liquor and allegedly committing beating for last 10 years, it cannot be held that there were nexus between act of cruelty and the suicide of deceased.
8. According to Mr.Aditya Shenoy, the accused used to harass her since long. She used to suffer it. Even the alleged incident on 6th and her suicide on 10th does not exhibit any rational connection. However, PW1, 2 and 3 have specifically asserted about the cruelty and asserted that she committed suicide only because of the cruelty. Crl.Appeal No.331/2016 5 PW6 had stated that victim used to disclose that she had no other option. Merely because a victim had suffered cruelty for long, it cannot be presumed that she had resolved to suffer it for ever. It is possible that continuous harassment may reach a breaking point, when the victim may be forced to commit suicide. Evidence in this case appears to establish that.
9, Having considered in the above perspective, I find no reason to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the court below holding the accused guilty under section 498A as faulty. Hence, the conviction is not liable to be interfered.
10. Regarding the sentence, the court below has imposed a sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in default to undergo SI for 6 months. Considering the nature of allegation and the age of the accused, the sentence appears to be on the higher side. The substantive sentence of period already undergone will serve the interest of justice including the default of fine period. The accused was arrested on 14/12/2010 during crime stage and was released on 4/1/2011 after one month detention. He is in jail from 11/2/2016, the date of judgment till date. Evidently, he has completed two years and 9 months. I feel that the period of detention already undergone can be treated as sufficient sentence.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed on the accused is sustained. However, the sentence Crl.Appeal No.331/2016 6 imposed is modified and the period of detention undergone will be treated as sufficient sentence including the default sentence period. Accordingly, accused shall be released from jail forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other crime.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE