Kerala High Court
Krishnamoorthi vs State Of Kerala on 6 November, 2024
CRL.REV.PET NO. 707 OF 2016 1
2024:KER:82760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 707 OF 2016
CRIME NO.158/2002 OF Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2014 IN CRA NO.241 OF
2012 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE -I, PALAKKAD ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2012 IN CC NO.191 OF 2006 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
KRISHNAMOORTHI
AGED 48 YEARS
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PALANIYAPPANAYKKAR, MALAYANCHALLA,
PUDUSSERI, PALAKKAD
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
Smt.Maya.M.N., P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 707 OF 2016 2
2024:KER:82760
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
-------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.707 of 2016
--------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024
ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred by the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.241/2012 on the files of the Sessions Court,
Palakkad against the judgment dated 21.03.2014 confirming the
judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad
convicting him under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The prosecution case is that, the accused being
the husband of deceased Vijaya, subjected her to cruelty both
physically and mentally, and as a result of the cruelty to which
she was subjected, she committed suicide along with her two
minor children, by jumping into the well in the farm of the accused
at about 3.30 pm on 28.06.2002.
3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral
evidence of PW1 to PW7 and Exts.P1 to P10. DW1 and DW2 were
also examined. After evaluating the available evidences, the trial
court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 498-A
2024:KER:82760
of the Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge
confirmed the finding of the trial court.
4. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the
appellate court, the accused preferred this revision petition
raising various grounds.
5. Now the point that arise for consideration is the
following:
Whether the judgment of the Sessions Judge confirming
the finding of the trial court convicting the accused under
Section 498-A IPC is liable to be interfered with, in the light
of the grounds raised in the revision petition?
6. Heard Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, learned Counsel
for the petitioner as well as Smt.M.N.Maya, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
7. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner that in this case PW2 and PW4, who supported
the prosecution case are the close relatives of the deceased and
there is no independent evidence in this case to prove the charge.
Therefore, he prays for the acquittal of the accused, by allowing
the revision petition.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
would argue that there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence
2024:KER:82760
of PW2 and PW4 in this case and therefore, she prayed for
sustaining the sentence.
9. PW2 and PW4 are the sisters of deceased Vijaya.
PW2 deposed that the accused subjected Vijaya to cruelty
demanding to bring more money and gold ornaments from her
residence. She further deposed that when the deceased Vijaya
visited her residence, at her residence also she saw the accused
physically assaulting Vijaya. It is to be noted that the above
evidence of PW2 that she had seen the accused physically
assaulting his wife Vijaya is not challenged during the cross
examination.
10. PW4, another sister of Vijaya also recalls that the
accused subjected Vijaya to cruelty demanding more gold and
money. She also saw the accused physically assaulting Vijaya in
order to meet his demand for gold and money. The above
evidence of PW4 was also not challenged, during the course of
cross examination.
11. The learned Counsel has taken a further
contention that PW2 and PW4 were not questioned by the
Investigating Officer and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were not
recorded, during the course of investigation. During the cross
examination, PW6 deposed that the statement of PW4 was
2024:KER:82760
recorded by him, at the time of investigation. However, no
question was asked to him as to whether the statement of PW2
was recorded. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit
in the argument that the statement of PW2 and PW4 were not
recorded by the Investigating Officer.
12. Since the evidence of PW2 and PW4 to the effect
that they have witnessed the accused physically torturing his wife
Vijaya, in order to meet his illegal demand for more gold and
money, was not challenged during cross-examination,. The
prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused subjected
her to cruelty before she committed suicide along with her minor
children, by jumping into the well.
13. In the above circumstances, I do not find any
irregularity or illegality in the findings of the trial court as well as
the appellate court that the accused has committed the offence
punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
14. The punishment provided for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment up to three years and shall
also be liable to pay fine. In this case, the trial court has
sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
15. Considering the fact that this is a case of 2006, I
2024:KER:82760
hold that rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a
fine of Rs.5,000/- will be sufficient punishment to meet the ends
of justice.
16. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of
as follows:
While sustaining the conviction under Section 498-A IPC,
the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
sd/
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
jm/
