Kerala High Court
Kesavan Thampi Gopakumar vs State Of Kerala
Author: B. Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/17TH MAGHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1223 of 2002 (C)
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.193/1997 of II
ADDL.D.C.,TRIVANDRUM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.136/1994 of J.M.F.C.-
I,ATTINGAL DATED
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------------------------
KESAVAN THAMPI GOPAKUMAR,
KALLUVILA VEEDU, VELANKONAM, ATTINGAL
CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.SAJU JOHN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE, ADVOCATE GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31
(CIRCLE INSPECTOR, OF POLICE
ATTINGAL POLICE STATION).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
B. KEMAL PASHA, J
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2013
O R D E R
Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.136 of 1994 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Attingal and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.193 of 1997 of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal in Crime No.164 of 1992 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge was laid and consequently C.C.No.136 of 1994 came into existence.
2. The prosecution case is that PW1 who is the wife of the petitioner who was 24 years old at the time of the incident was being tortured and harassed by the petitioner on a demand Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:2:- for more dowry. As she could not withstand the harassment, she decided to kill her two children and to commit suicide. On 10.6.1992 at 7.30 a.m, she put both her children into a well situated near her house and jumped into the well with a view to committing suicide. Unfortunately she was rescued; but both the children drowned.
3. PWs.1 to 9 were examined before the trial court and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram through Crl.Appeal No.193 of 1997.
4. Even in the midst of the limited scope of scanning the evidence in a case wherein there are concurrent findings of guilt entered by both the courts below, this Court has perused the evidence. The main argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that PW1 was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 302 and 309 of I.P.C., and she was Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:3:- tried before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1993, and that the defence taken in the said case was that accidentally both the children of the petitioner fell in a well and she jumped into the well for rescuing the children. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said defence taken by PW1 in the said case in which she could obtain an acquittal clearly militates against the prosecution case herein. A copy of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No.40 of 1993 has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a defence was taken for and on behalf of PW1 in the said case. At the same time, there is absolutely nothing to show that PW1 had made such a version before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in the said case. She was not confronted with any of her such statements in this case. In the said sessions case she was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. Such a defence taken by the learned counsel for PW1 (who was the accused in the said case), cannot militate against Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:4:- the prosecution case herein.
5. PW1 has categorically deposed regarding the harassments and tortures meted out to her and her deceased children from the part of the petitioner. She was being tortured and harassed to the maximum by the petitioner by forwarding a demand for the execution of a document in respect of the landed property of the father of PW1 in favour of the petitioner. On the fateful day also he severely beat PW1 and destroyed the plantain fruits brought by PW1 for feeding her children. It seems, thereafter, the petitioner went away after throwing the ultimatum that the document relating to the property of the father of PW1 should be executed in his favour prior to his coming back. The girl had no other go than attempting to commit suicide; but unfortunately she was rescued.
6. PW2 is the father of PW1. PW3 is the mother of PW1. Both PWs.2 and 3 have fully supported the prosecution case and their testimony clearly corroborate the versions of PW1 regarding the harassments and the circumstances which led to the incident. PW4 is one of the neighbours of PW1 and he is a Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:5:- teacher of the Government Boys High School, Attingal. According to him, there were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and PW1 and that it was such a quarrel which resulted in the incident. PW6 is another neighbour who clearly deposed that there were frequent quarrels in between the petitioner and PW1 and that the petitioner frequently used to harass and torture PW1. On a perusal of the evidence in this case, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the conviction passed by the trial Court which was upheld by the appellate Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for leniency in the sentence and has pointed out that the trial Court has imposed the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC on the petitioner. This is a case wherein, in fact, the police ought to have charge sheeted the petitioner for an offence under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner has, in fact, marginally escaped from the clutches of S.304B as PW1 could be rescued by the neighbours. Considering the totality of the circumstances involved and the gravity of the offence Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:6:- proved, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to any leniency in the sentence. This revision is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I am doing so.
In the result, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/-
[True copy] P.S. to Judge.
Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:7:- B. KEMAL PASHA, J ******************* Crl.R.P.No.1223 of 2002 ******************* O R D E R 6th day of February, 2013 Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:8:- Crl.R.P.No. 1223 of 2002 -:9:- [C] Crl.R.P.No.1223 of 2002