Dismissed
K.Sudhakaran v. Suresh
Kerala HCCrl.Rev.Pet/1958/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1958 of 2009()
-----------------------------SC.1048/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT
K.SUDHAKARAN,AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN, REMA MANDHIRAM,NEAR GHURUMANDHIRAM, VELAMANNOOR MURI,KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE,KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1958 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent No.1, husband of the deceased of the charges under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Respondent No.1 married Suja, the deceased on 2.5.1999. Going by the evidence he went abroad in connection with employment about fifteen days after the marriage and as per the statement of PW1, first informant, information reached them that respondent No.1 isl coming on leave on 20.7.2001. While so, between 11 p.m. On 2.7.2001 and 7 a.m. On 3.7.2001 Suja committed suicide by hanging herself on the hook of a ceiling fan. First information regarding the incident was given by PW1 on 3.7.2001 at about 11 a.m. Based on that, a case of unnatural death was registered. Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate conducted inquest. During that time there was no complaint of harassment of the deceased by respondent No.1 of anybody else. After about sixteen days, parents of the deceased told the investigating officer that respondent No.1 had subjected the deceased to cruelty demanding more ornaments and money and unable to bear that, deceased committed suicide. Nature of offence in the first information report was altered as one under Sections 398A and 306 of the IPC. After investigation a final report was submitted alleging offences in that line. Respondent No.1 faced trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kollam. Prosecution examined
Crl.R.P.No.1958/2009
2
PWs 1 to 16 and proved Exts.P1 to P11. Exts.D1 to D7 were marked for respondent No.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the charge is not proved and acquitted respondent No.1 under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. Learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions in the matter has submitted that State has not preferred an appeal against the acquittal.
Crl.R.P.No.1958/2009
3
is concerned, he is a friend of the deceased and was nowhere in the picture when PW10, Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. PW6 comes into picture only in the subsequent investigation. PW3 is a neighbour of respondent No.1 and at the relevant time was a member of the local panchayat. He is an attestor in Ext.P2, inquest. He stated at the time PW10 conducted the inquest that nobody had a case of cruelty or harassment of the deceased leading to her death. This is confirmed by PW10 and Ext.P1, inquest report. Unlike the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate under Section 174 of the Code are admissible in evidence. Not only that PWs 11 and 12 had no case at the time of inquest of any cruelty or harassment of the deceased, what they told to PW10 then is that there was no problem between the deceased and respondent No.1 and that she had a happy life at the matrimonial home. Exts.D2 series and D6 series are the marked portions in the statement of PWs 11 and 12 recorded by PW10. These marked portions show that respondent No.1 used to send money to the deceased regularly to meet the expenses of herself and the family, that PWs 11 and 12 used to visit the deceased in the matrimonial home often and the deceased used to make return visits. On such occasions there was no complaint from the deceased that she had any difficulty of any sort at the matrimonial home. PWs 11 and 12 even stated that the suicide might be due to the stress and agony the deceased had on account of respondent No.1 going abroad about 10-15 days after the marriage and not coming back until her death and the strain
Crl.R.P.No.1958/2009
4
she was suffering on account of the illness she had which prevented her from going for job she got recently in a school which is a little far away. This cannot be taken as an isolated statement since in Ext.P1, PW1 stated that after respondent No.1 went abroad after marriage, deceased and her parents-in-law had a happy life at the matrimonial home. It is only several days after the incident that PWs 6, 11 and 12 came with the case of alleged harassment and cruelty.
Crl.R.P.No.1958/2009
5
mood on account of that distressing thought. This must be taken along with the statement in Ext.P1 that information was received that respondent No.1 was to come on leave on 20.7.2001. Possibly or atleast probably deceased feared that even her cohabitation with respondent No.1 after his arrival would not bear fruit and she was thinking about that situation and its aftermath on her life.
Crl.R.P.No.1958/2009
6
has written so in such a mental state is not by itself sufficient to warrant a conclusion that respondent No.1 has subjected the deceased to cruelty, instigated or aided intentionally or otherwise her committing suicide. After going through the evidence on record and on hearing learned counsel I am not inclined to think that learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in his approach either in the matter of appreciation of evidence or the conclusion arrived at. I have to bear in mind that the function of the revisional court is not like that of an appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal where appreciation of evidence is possible. I referred to the evidence on record only for the purpose of satisfying myself that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety either in assessing the evidence or reaching the conclusion. As such, this revision cannot be sustained. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused accused of dowry death charges by not properly appreciating evidence against statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
De facto-Complainant
Suresh
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court