[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jawaharlal vs State on 6 April, 2026
2026:KER:29259
Crl.R.P.No.2535/2007
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2535 OF 2007
(JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2007 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.458/06 ON THE
FILES OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM, WHICH CONFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.05.2006 IN C.C.NO.821/00 ON THE FILES OF
THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 JAWAHARLAL,
S/O. SUNDARESAN,
LAL NIVAS,
WESTERN SIDE OF NADAKAVU JUNCTION,
MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE.
2 SANTHAKUMARI
W/O SUNDARESAN
DO. DO. DO.
3 SUNDARESAN,
S/O AYYAPPAN DO. DO. DO.
BY ADV SHRI.T.D.ROBIN
RESPONDENT:
STATE
HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.198/00)
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV. NANDA SURENDRAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.03.2026, THE COURT ON 06.04.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:29259
Crl.R.P.No.2535/2007
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam, and the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Ernakulam, in
C.C.No.821/2000 & Crl.A.No.458/2006 respectively, convicting and
sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section
498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,
'IPC'), are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that the first petitioner, who married
PW1 on 09.01.2000, subjected her to cruelty, along with the petitioners 2
& 3, who are his parents, by physically and mentally torturing PW1
demanding more dowry. As part of the above tortures, the petitioners
are alleged to have inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 at 05:30 p.m., on
26.06.2000, while she was pregnant, and expelled her from the
residence of the petitioners.
3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on records two documents as
Exts P1 & P2. One defence witness was examined as DW1 and three
defence documents were marked as Exts D1 to D3. After the evaluation
of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners
2026:KER:29259
guilty of Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them
thereunder. Accordingly, the petitioners were sentenced to imprisonment
till the rising of the Court, and also fine of Rs.50,000/- upon the first
petitioner with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months,
and fine of Rs.10,000/- each upon the second and third petitioners with
a default clause of simple imprisonment for three months. It was further
directed that, if the fine amount is realised, it shall be paid as
compensation to the de facto complainant/PW1. Though the petitioners
challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with
the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed,
confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above
concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are here before
this Court with this revision petition.
4. Since there was no representation from the part of the
petitioners, notice was issued to the petitioners intimating the
adjournment of the case and also informing them that the case would be
decided in their absence, if there is no representation from their part on
the adjourned posting date. The notice to the third petitioner was
returned with the endorsement that 'the addressee is no more'. The
2026:KER:29259
notice to the petitioners 1 & 2 were duly served. Since the petitioners 1
& 2 did not appear even after the receipt of the notice, Adv. Ms. Nanda
Surendran was appointed as Amicus curiae to represent the revision
petitioners.
5. When the case was taken up for hearing, the counsel who
had been earlier appearing for the petitioners expressed his willingness
to argue the case. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the
learned counsel who had been appearing for the petitioners were heard
from the part of the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor was heard
from the part of the respondent.
6. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court mainly relied on
the evidence of the de facto complainant who was examined as PW1 to
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established
the act of the accused perpetrating matrimonial cruelty upon PW1. In
addition to that, the evidence tendered by two witnesses as PW2 & PW3
that they had seen PW1 outside the front gate of the house of the
accused after her expulsion from that house on 26.06.2000, was also
relied on by the courts below. The evidence adduced by PW4, the father
of the de facto complainant, was taken as corroborative to the evidence
of PW1. It is after a meticulous analysis of the aforesaid evidence that
2026:KER:29259
the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioners committed
the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that the observations in the impugned judgment of
the Trial Court would give the indication that the learned magistrate
relied on probabilities to find the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, it
has been argued that the Trial Court had acknowledged the
embellishments, omissions and contradictions in the testimony of PW1,
and hence the courts below ought to have discarded the said evidence.
It is not possible to accept the aforesaid arguments of learned amicus
curiae and the learned counsel for the petitioners. The mere fact that
there is a casual remark in the concluding portion of paragraph No.14 in
the judgment of the Trial Court that, 'the absence of any contention
about any kind of disorderly behaviour of any of the parties for a
breakdown of the relationship between the parties would probabilise the
version of PW1 that there was demand for dowry', does not mean that
the Trial Court had decided the case on the basis of probabilities. So
also, the observation of the Trial Court about embellishments, omissions
and contradictions which are usual in cases of this nature, does not by
itself vitiate the prosecution case.
2026:KER:29259
8. It is to be noted that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court had taken into account the evidence of PW1 regarding the physical
and mental cruelties perpetrated upon her by the petitioners alleging
that the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she had brought, in
connection with her marriage, were grossly inadequate. So also, the
statement of PW1 about the incident which occurred in the evening of
26.06.2000 after she was diagnosed as pregnant, has been rightly relied
on by the courts below to conclude that the acts of the petitioners
amounted to cruelty of such a grade as required to constitute the offence
under Section 498A IPC. The evidence pertaining to the physical torture
meted out to PW1 in the evening of 26.06.2000, and the act of the
petitioners expelling PW1 from their residence, have been considered by
the courts below to conclude that the petitioners resorted to such
matrimonial cruelty upon PW1 which was sufficient to proceed against
them for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC. It is not
possible for this Court in exercise of its revisional powers to unsettle the
concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard. As regards
the sentence awarded, it is pertinent to note that the courts below were
extremely generous in limiting the penalty to imprisonment till the rising
of the Court and fine, and avoiding any further prison term to the
2026:KER:29259
petitioners, though the imprisonment provided under Section 498A IPC
extended to three years. Therefore, there is no scope for making any
modification in the sentence portion as well. Accordingly, I find that
there is absolutely no merit in this revision petition.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance
rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Ms. Nanda Surendran in
addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
2026:KER:29259
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 821/2000
OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 11-5-2006
