Kerala High Court
Binu @ George vs State Of Kerala,Rep.By P.P.,H.C.,Ekm on 24 March, 2025
2025:KER:24387
Crl.R.P.No.1207/2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1207 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2005 IN Crl.A NO.336
OF 2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(ADHOC), COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA SUBMITTED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2004 IN CC NO.492 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 BINU @ GEORGE
KOKKATHODU MURI, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE.
2 SEBASTIANOSE KRISHNANKUTTY KURICHI
THADATHIL VEEDU, KOKKATHODU MURI,, ARUVAPULAM VILLAGE.
3 THRESSIYAMMA KURICHITHADATHIL VEEDU
KOKKATHODU MURI, ARUVAPULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
SMT.SEETHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24387
Crl.R.P.No.1207/2006 2
ORDER
This revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the
Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.No.336/2004
upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence
under Section 498A I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. The Trial Court, after the examination of 18 witnesses as
PW1 to PW18, from the part of the prosecution, and the marking of 7
documents as Exts.P1 to P7 as documents for the prosecution, found
after an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the petitioners
committed the offence of matrimonial cruelty envisaged under Section
498A I.P.C. Accordingly, they were awarded a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.5,000/- each with a default
clause for rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellate Court,
after a re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, found in its judgment
dated 08.12.2005 in Crl.A.No.336/2004, that the findings of the learned
Magistrate are not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence of the petitioners were upheld by the Appellate
Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, the
petitioners are here with this revision petition.
2025:KER:24387
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The prosecution case relates to the matrimonial cruelty
perpetrated by the petitioners upon an unfortunate lady by name
Annamma @ Kochumol who had terminated her life on 12.06.2002
unable to bear the incessant tortures from them. The first petitioner is
the husband of the said lady, and the second and third petitioners are
his father and mother respectively. The marriage of the first petitioner
and the deceased was on 12.09.1999. It is alleged that the persistent
mental and physical tortures perpetrated by the petitioners upon the
victim were of such an extent that she had to shift her residence to a
shed constructed in the compound where the petitioners 2 and 3 were
residing in their house. The matrimonial cruelty allegedly continued
even after that lady gave birth to a child of the first petitioner.
5. Before the Trial Court, PW1 to PW4 and PW7 were
examined to establish the charge of physical and mental cruelty meted
out to the victim by the petitioners. Among the above witnesses, PW1
and PW7 turned hostile to the prosecution. However, PW2 to PW4
testified before the Trial Court in support of the prosecution case.
PW2, the brother of the deceased lady narrated before the Trial Court
2025:KER:24387
various incidents of demand for dowry by the petitioners and the
tortures inflicted upon his sister to compel them to meet the above
demand of dowry. PW2 even stated that on one occasion, the second
petitioner stood at the door of his house with a knife uttering obscene
words upon her sister, and preventing her from entering into that
house. The cruelty perpetrated upon the victim by the other petitioners
is also revealed in the evidence of PW2. PW3, a neighbour of PW2,
testified before the learned Magistrate about the demand for more
dowry and cash by the petitioners and the cruel treatment meted out
to the victim when she was unable to meet the above illegal demand
on the part of the petitioners. PW4, the sister-in-law of the deceased
deposed before the Trial Court upon the same lines as that of the
testimonies of PW2 and PW3. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court placed reliance on the aforesaid evidence to arrive at the finding
that the petitioners subjected the victim to cruelty to such a
treacherous level that she had no option but to wind up her life by
consuming poison. The appreciation of evidence in the above regard
by the courts below does not suffer from any material irregularity or
anomaly warranting the interference of this Court in revision. The
courts below had rightly observed that the minor discrepancies in the
2025:KER:24387
evidence of the said witnesses were so trivial that it did not affect the
main fabric of the prosecution case. There is absolutely no reason to
unsettle the concurrent findings of the courts below in the above
regard. It is well settled that the scope of interference in revision
against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court are limited to those cases where there is perverse appreciation of
evidence and manifest illegality.
6. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in
revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999
SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court
to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would
otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao
Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as follows:
2025:KER:24387
Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is
not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the
court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be
perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly
unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where
the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion
is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere
with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in
Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows:
Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the
High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan
vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This
Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall
not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or
wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant
material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that
another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph
14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant
material or there is palpable misreading of records, the
Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order,
merely because another view is possible. The Revisional
Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole
purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the
power in the court to do justice in accordance with the
2025:KER:24387
principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of
the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be
equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the
court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to
be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or
glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no
material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in
exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
7. As far as the present case is concerned, none of the
parameters discussed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case laws as
grounds warranting the interference of this Court in the exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction, are attracted. Therefore, the concurrent findings
of conviction laid down by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the
judgments under challenge cannot be interfered with in this revision.
However, on the matter of sentence, it appears that the punishment
awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is a little bit
excessive. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the present age of the petitioners and also the time lag of more than
two decades from the date of commission of the crime, I deem it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded on the
petitioners to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine amount
2025:KER:24387
of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the courts below is retained as such with
modification to the default sentence as simple imprisonment for three
months. The judgment rendered by the Appellate Court confirming the
conviction and sentence of the petitioners, stands modified to the
above extent.
In the result, the revision is allowed in part as follows:
i) The concurrent findings of conviction of the petitioners for
the offence under Section 498A I.P.C read with 34 I.P.C, by the courts
below, stand confirmed.
ii) The sentence awarded for the aforesaid offence is modified
as rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand only) with a default clause of simple imprisonment for
three months.
Transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to the
Trial Court for immediate enforcement of the sentence.
(sd/-)
G.GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
