Kerala High Court
Sajudheen And Others vs Sub Inspector Of Police And Another on 30 June, 2025
2025:KER:47231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2913 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2008 IN SC
NO.299 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II,
KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 SAJUDHEEN AND OTHERS
ARAMKUNI, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, NALLALAM
2 CHEKKU SO. AVARAN
RESIDING -DO-
3 MARIYAKUTTY
W/O. CHEKKU, RESIDING -DO-
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 2913 of 2008 :2:
2025:KER:47231
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
The accused Nos. 1 to 3 in SC.No.299/2006 on the files of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc
II), Kozhikode have preferred this appeal challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against
them in the said case for the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
PW1 and the accused belong to the Muslim community,
and their marriage was solemnized as per their religious rites
and ceremonies on 28.03.2004. After the marriage, while both
of them were residing together in the matrimonial home, the
1st accused, as well as his parents and sister, who are arrayed
as accused Nos.2 to 4 in this case started to ill-treat and harass
PW1 alleging that she lacked beauty and the dowry brought by
her is insufficient. Furthermore, the accused misappropriated
45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.1.5
lakhs given by her parents at the time of her marriage and
used it for their own purposes. When PW1 became pregnant,
2025:KER:47231
the 1st accused, at the instigation of the 2nd and 3rd accused,
compelled her to abort the fetus, which she resisted. Despite
her resistance, the accused forcefully administered two pills
with an intention to abort the fetus and caused PW1 to
miscarry without her consent. Hence, the accused are alleged
to have committed the offences punishable under Section 313,
406, 506(i), 498-A r/w 34 IPC.
3. After the completion of the investigation, the final
report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court.-V, Kozhikode. On being satisfied that this case is one
triable exclusively by a court of Session, the learned
Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities,
committed the case to the court of Session, Kozhikode, under
section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking
cognizance made over the case for trial and disposal to the
Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. On the appearance of the
accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and
perusal of records, framed a written charge against the
accused for offences punishable under Section 313, 406,
506(i), 498-A r/w 34 IPC. When the charge was read over and
2025:KER:47231
explained to the accused, all of them pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1
to PW6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. After the
completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On questioning, the
accused denied all the incriminating materials brought out in
evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard
under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and as it was not a fit case to
acquit under the said section, the accused were directed to
enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence they may
have in support thereof. Thereupon, one witness was
examined from the side of the accused as DW1 and marked
Exts.D1 to D4. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and
finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the 4th
accused not guilty for the offences charged against her and she
was acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to
3 were also found not guilty of offences punishable under
Section 313, 406, 506(1) of IPC and acquitted on the said
charges. However, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC, and
2025:KER:47231
they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In
default of payment of the fine, they were ordered to undergo
imprisonment for six months each. Aggrieved by the said
finding of guilt, conviction, and order of sentence passed, the
accused have come up with this appeal.
5. I heard Sri. T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the learned trial judge convicted the accused without any
evidence to prove an offence under Section 498-A IPC.
According to him, the ingredients to attract an offence under
Section 498-A IPC are lacking in this case. The counsel further
urged that it is unsafe to rely upon the solitary evidence of
PW1 to record a conviction, especially when her evidence is
marred by contradictions and omissions of a serious nature. It
is further contended that the acts alleged by the prosecution to
attract an offence under Section 498-A IPC remain unproven.
The learned counsel further urged that the aquittal of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 313 of IPC
2025:KER:47231
itself indicates that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged
forced abortion and in the absence of such proof, convicting the
accused under Section 498-A IPC could be unjustified,
especially since the other alleged acts of cruelty remain
unsubstantiated by convincing evidence. Per contra, the
learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the ingredients to
attract an offence under Section 498-A of IPC are fully
established in this case, and hence there is nothing to interfere
with the impugned judgment. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, the incidents of domestic violence and ill treatments
often occur inside the four corners of a house and hence it is
not prudent to look for corroboration by other independent
evidence and in those sort of cases, the solitary evidence of
victim would suffice to enter into a conviction if the same
inspires the confidence of the court.
7. This is a case where a married woman alleges ill
treatment and harassment by her husband and in-laws. The
law was set in motion in this case on the strength of a
statement given by the victim of this offence to the Police.
When the defacto complainant who gave the FIS was examined
as PW1, she deposed that the first accused married her on
2025:KER:47231
28-03-2004 as per religious rites. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the
father, mother, and sister of the first accused, respectively. At
the time of marriage, she was given 60 sovereigns of
ornaments and cash of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as her family share. The
cash was handed over by her uncle to the 2nd accused. After
marriage, she resided with her husband's family. On the next
day of the marriage itself, the 1st accused obtained most of her
gold ornaments, leaving her with only about 15 sovereigns.
The 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments obtained by the 1st
accused are still with the accused persons. About two weeks
after the marriage, the accused persons told her that they
agreed to the marriage only because they were in need of
money, and that the gold brought by her was not up to their
expectations, and hence they required an amount of
Rs. 50,000/- more. The accused found fault with her cooking
and household work. They regularly quarrelled with her, asking
her to bring more cash from her house. Accused Nos. 1 to 3
used to beat her, alleging that the cash brought by her was
inadequate. The 4th accused, her sister-in-law, did not permit
her to sleep with her husband and instead insisted that she
should sleep with her. Furthermore, the accused persons did
2025:KER:47231
not permit her to contact her parents over the phone. She
became pregnant in the 7th month of her marriage. Upon
knowing about the same, the 1st accused told her that, he did
not need a child at that time and asked her to abort the
pregnancy. When she refused, the first accused threatened to
kill her. On 20.11.2004, in the evening, the 1st accused
brought two pills and asked her to take them to abort the
fetus. When she refused to take the pills, he threatened her,
caught hold of her neck, and forcibly administered the pills to
her. That night, she was locked in a room, and she felt severe
abdominal pain. On the next morning, she had bleeding and
hence she was taken to Malabar Hospital, Kozhikode, where
she was given medication. On 22.11.2004, the bleeding
increased and she was taken to National Hospital, Kozhikode,
where Dr. Bindu Mukherjee (PW4) examined her and she was
admitted in the said hospital, saying that the child is not alive.
D&C procedure was done on the next morning, and she was
discharged from the hospital in the evening. Thereafter also
the accused persons repeated their demand for more cash. She
has even thought of committing suicide due to the trauma she
faced. The 1st and 3rd accused even asked her to go and die
2025:KER:47231
in the river. While so, she went to the house of the brother of
the 2nd accused for a feast and stayed there for two days.
During this time, she contacted her mother over the phone and
told her about the harassment she faced. After attending the
feast, she returned to her husband's house. Then the 1st and
the 3rd accused beat and ousted her from the said house. On
getting information about this incident, when her mother (PW2)
and brother came there, the 1st and 2nd accused beat her
again in the presence of her mother and brother. Then her
mother took her to her paternal house. On 12.05.2005, she
went to Nallalam Police Station and gave Ext.P1 F1 Statement.
The delay in giving a statement to the police was caused due to
her inability to go outside the house and also due to the
ongoing discussions between the mosque's authorities in this
connection.
8. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the evidence that
the prosecution is banking on to prove the incidents alleged in
this case is the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are none other
than the parents of PW1. However, their evidence reveals that
both of them had only hearsay knowledge regarding the
incidents in this case. However, both of them deposed that at
2025:KER:47231
the time of marriage, they had given 60 sovereigns of gold
ornaments to their daughter and entrusted an amount of
Rs.1.5 lakhs in the hands of the 2nd accused in the presence of
the 1st accused. Virtually, the evidence that the prosecution
relies on to prove the acts of cruelty is the sole evidence of
PW1. While considering the question whether the solitary
evidence of PW1 can form basis for a conviction in a cases of
this nature, it is to be noted that, in cases relating to domestic
violences, it is not prudent to look for independent
corroboration for the evidence of a victim, particularly when
the incidents of domestic violence including ill-treatments and
harassments often occur within the confines of a house.
Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in
relying on the solitary evidence of PW1 in entering into a
conviction, provided the evidence is convincing and reliable.
Moreover, as spelt out under Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required to
prove any fact. This underscores the principle that the quality
of evidence matters more than its quantity. However, when a
court is called upon to rely upon the solitary evidence of a
witness, the court must act with much care and
2025:KER:47231
circumspection.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the
evidence of PW1, it can be seen that she has a definite case
that the accused misappropriated her 45 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs. However, neither PW1 nor her
parents, who were examined as PW2 or PW3, stated that the
possession of those gold ornaments was obtained by the
accused through coercion or force. But what the said witnesses
deposed is that the same were entrusted with the accused,
voluntarily. Notably, PW1 in her evidence did not state that the
accused persons had dishonestly misappropriated or converted
the cash or ornaments for their own use. But what she stated
is that the gold ornaments are still with the accused. Likewise,
there is no evidence to show that at any point of time, PW1 or
her parents demanded the accused person to return the gold or
cash belonging to PW1, and the accused person retained the
same despite such a demand. It was for the above reason, the
trial court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable
under Section 406 of IPC. Therefore, I have no hesitation in
holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused
misappropriated the gold ornaments or cash of PW1.
2025:KER:47231
10. Before delving into a discussion on the question
whether an offence under Section 498-A is made out in this
case, it is worthwhile to extract the said Section of law;
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.]
11. In essence, Section 498-A of IPC deals with the
subjection of a woman to cruelty by her husband or his
relatives. The explanation to Section 498-A makes it clear that
any willful conduct that has the capacity to likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb, or the physical or mental health of the woman
amounts to an act of cruelty. Likewise, the second limb of the
explanation to the term 'cruelty' clarifies that the act of
harassing a woman with a view to coerce her or any person
2025:KER:47231
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
persons or related to meet such demand also amounts to
cruelty.
12. In essence, not every instance of harassment and
ill-treatment amounts to cruelty. Only those acts that fall
within the 1st and the 2nd limb of the explanation to Section
498-A, defining cruelty, would qualify as acts of cruelty for the
purpose of Section 498-A of IPC.
13. Petty quarrels between spouses in a family do not
amount to cruelty. Such disagreements are inherent to family
life, as husbands and wives, being human, are prone to
differences of opinion and trivial verbal altercations. These
natural occurrences, by themselves, do not amount to cruelty.
Likewise, a single instance of harassment generally does not
constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. However,
it cannot be said in absolute terms that a series of acts of
cruelty is always needed to prove cruelty. A single act may
suffice for a conviction under Section 498-A of IPC, if it is
severe enough to meet the legal definition of cruelty.
14. Keeping in mind the above, while examining the
2025:KER:47231
evidence of PW1, it can be seen that during her chief
examination, she deposed that the accused Nos.1 to 3
physically assaulted her, demanding dowry. However, during
cross-examination, when a specific question was put to her by
the defence counsel, she stated that she could not remember
whether she had stated about the said incident to the police
while giving the FIS. Anyhow, no attempt was made by the
defence counsel to prove such an omission, if any, at the time
of examination of the police officer who recorded the FIS in this
case. Nevertheless, it cannot go unnoticed that, apart from the
oral evidence of PW1, no materials whatsoever have been
produced from the side of the prosecution to show that any of
the accused physically assaulted PW1 during her stay at the
matrimonial home. Even PW1 is not having a case that she
had sought any medical care or undergone any inpatient
treatment in connection with the alleged physical assault.
Moreover, when PW1's parents were examined, they too did not
state that PW1 had ever complained about any sort of physical
assault by the accused. Therefore, I have no hesitation in
holding that the case of the PW1 in this regard cannot be
believed.
2025:KER:47231
15. The main incident that the prosecution relies upon to
prove the accused subjected the victim to cruelty is the one
allegedly occurred after the victim became pregnant. During
examination before court, PW1 categorically deposed that after
her pregnancy was confirmed, her husband compelled her to
terminate it at the instigation and persuasion of 2nd and 3rd
accused. She further stated that when she was not amenable
to the said demand, on 20.11.2024, the 1st accused forcefully
administered two pills to her with the intention to abort the
fetus. According to PW1, she experienced severe abdominal
pain that night. The following day, she was taken to Malabar
Hospital, Kozhikode, and she was bleeding then. Since the
bleeding could not be controlled, on 22.11.2004, she was
shifted to National Hospital, Kozhikode, where Dr. Bindhu
Mukherji (PW4) examined her in detail and admitted her for
treatment. On the next day, D&C procedure was done, stating
that the fetus was dead, and she was discharged from the
hospital. However, while analyzing the above evidence of PW1,
it is significant to note that no documentary evidence,
whatsoever, was produced from the side of the prosecution to
prove that on 21.11.2004, PW1 was taken to Malabar Hospital,
2025:KER:47231
Kozhikode. It raises serious suspicion as to why the prosecution
failed to examine the Doctor who allegedly treated PW1 at that
hospital, if such a treatment had indeed been given.
16. Moreover, what PW1 deposed is that it was on
22.11.2004, she was examined by Dr. Bindhu Mukherji (PW4)
at National Hospital, Kozhikode, and she underwent D&C
procedure on the next day. However, PW4, the Doctor who
examined PW1 and did the D&C procedure, testified that it was
actually on 20.11.2004 that PW1 had approached her with a
scan report. The prescription given by PW4, marked as Ext.D4,
corroborates this and clearly establishes that PW1 consulted
PW4 with a scan report on 20.11.2004. Thus, the case of PW1
that it was on 22.11.2004, she consulted PW4 is demonstrably
false.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the case
of PW1 is that it was on 20.11.2004, the accused forcefully
administered some pills to abort her pregnancy. PW1 is having
a further case that after administering the pills, she was locked
inside a room on that day, and it was on the next day, she was
taken to Malabar Hospital, Kozhikode. As already stated the
oral evidence of PW4, the doctor, and the D4 prescription card
2025:KER:47231
clearly establishes that it was on 20.11.2004, PW1 approached
PW4 with a scan report and on examining PW1, and on
verifying the scan report, PW4 found that it is a case of missed
abortion i.e., the fetus is already dead. Hence, it is apparent
that PW1 purposefully suppressed the fact that she met PW4,
the doctor, on 20.11.2004. Moreover, referring to Ext.P2 case
sheet, PW4, the Doctor testified that at the time of
examination, although the patient was bleeding, she was
stable. The Doctor further opined that missed abortion can
occur due to various reasons, and one of the reasons is genetic
defect. When a definite question was put to PW4 that whether
missed abortion could be caused by administering pills or
tablets, PW4 replied that it may not always be possible. During
cross-examination, PW4 stated that the patient was examined
by her in private, in the absence of any bystander, and on any
occasion, the patient had not complained to PW4 of having
been administered any pills by anyone. PW4 added that the
patient was perfectly calm and cool, and exhibited no
symptoms of having taken pills. PW4 further stated that the
fetus was already dead before the examination of the patient
on 20.11.2004. The evidence of PW4 to the effect that PW1
2025:KER:47231
made no complaint about the administration of any pills during
medical examination assumes much significance, particularly
when PW4 deposed that she examined the patient in private in
the absence of any bystander. If any pills had been
administered, naturally, PW1 would have stated the same to
the Doctor. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that when the
mother of PW1 was examined as PW3, she stated that while
her daughter was admitted in the hospital in connection with
D&C procedure, he visited her daughter. But her daughter then
did not state about the administration of pills by the accused,
but the same was disclosed to her by her daughter only when
she came to her house later. The non-disclosure about the said
incident by PW1 to her mother when the latter visited PW1 in
the hospital also creates doubt in the mind of this court
regarding the occurrence of such an incident.
18. As mentioned earlier, the definite version of PW1 is
that it was in the evening of 20.11.2004, the 1st accused
administered pills to abort the fetus. However, the evidence of
PW4, the Doctor, and the medical records marked in evidence
clearly show that it was in the daytime of 20.11.2004, PW4
examined PW1, and in the said examination itself, the missed
2025:KER:47231
abortion was diagnosed. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be
heard to say that the abortion was due to the administration of
any pills by the accused in the evening of 20.11.2004. Hence,
I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove that the accused administered pills forcefully,
and this act led to a miscarriage. As the main act of cruelty
alleged by the prosecution is unproven, convicting the accused
under Section 498-A IPC would be unjustified, especially since
the other alleged acts of cruelty remain unsubstantiated.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed against the
appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC is set aside, and they are acquitted. Fine amount,
if any, has been deposited by the appellants/accused; the same
shall be refunded to them in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS/ncd
