Dismissed

Prameela Sreedharan v. Nalini Sreenivasan

Kerala HC6 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1695/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the defacto complainant challenging an order of acquittal by the Sessions Court. The court declined to exercise revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. considering the age of the accused and the long lapse of time, holding no merit in the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit; no reason was found to exercise revision jurisdiction.

Prameela Sreedharan Vs Nalini Sreenivasan — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 448/2001 OF VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶5

CC 407/1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶6

PRAMEELA SREEDHARAN
MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE,
KADAVANADU, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.MOHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶7

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND STATE :

¶8

1 NALINI SREENIVASAN W/O SREENIVASAN, NALINAM, H.NO 28/552, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2 PREM KUMAR S/O SREENIVASAN NALINAM, H.NO 28/552, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

3 SREEKUMAR S/O SREENIVASAN NALINAM, H.NO 28/552, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.BINDU K. NAIR SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN PP K A NOUSHAD

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶14

¶15

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶16

......…..................................

¶17

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1695 of 2003

¶18

….................................. Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Revision petitioner was the defacto complainant in

¶21

C.C.No.407/1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. She has preferred this revision petition against an order of acquittal in Crl.Appeal No.448/2001

¶22

on the files of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 1 to 3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶23

Code, 1860 apart from Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶24

According to the prosecution, the accused persons had, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted serious injuries to the wife of the 2^nd accused and attacked her with dangerous weapons and a stick while the first accused pushed

¶25

the defacto complainant from behind and thereby committed

¶26

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶27

¶28

the offences alleged.

¶29

In order to prove the prosecution case PW 1 to PW11 were examined and Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 were marked. After analysing the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Considering the age of the first accused, she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC apart from simple imprisonment for three

¶30

months for the offences under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court,

¶32

Ernakulam as Crl.Appeal No.448/2001. By judgment dated 18.03.2003 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and

¶33

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶34

¶35

set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused. The defacto complainant assails the order of acquittal in this revision petition.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶37

counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

The judgment of the trial court reveals that the first accused was aged 66 in the year 1998 while accused 2 and 3 were aged 42 and 41 respectively. Therefore, all those accused are of considerable age as of now. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 498A and 323 of IPC. The appellate court had, by a detailed judgment, analysed the evidence against the accused and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt.

¶39

The appellate court had noticed the discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and noticed that, though PW1 alleged that the accused had spoken in a manner that caused hurt to her, she had not deposed the specific words used by the accused. The medical

¶40

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶41

¶42

evidence was also appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and when considered in the light of evidence of the doctor (PW10) it was found that there was no tenderness even on the

¶43

body of PW1. After appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the complaint of PW1 was not supported by any legally acceptable evidence.

¶44

Even the evidence of PW3, who was examined on behalf of the prosecution reveals that he has not seen any incident of harassment of PW1 by the accused. Of course, the appellate court had shrugged aside his evidence as being improbable since he was only a chance witness. However, noticing that seizure of the weapon was not properly proved and the version of PW1, when compared with her complaint as Ext.P1 contained contradictions and could not be relied upon, the appellate court acquitted the accused after setting aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate.

¶45

On an appreciation of the contentions of the learned counsel

¶46

appearing on behalf of the parties, I find no reason to exercise

¶47

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶48

¶49

the jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The age of the parties

¶50

and the long lapse of time are also matters which cannot be ignored while arriving at the above conclusion.

¶51

In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

AMV/07/07/2023

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1695 OF 2003

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES :

¶59

ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL NO.448/2001 DATED 18.03.2003 ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.407/1998 DATED 31.05.2001

¶60

TRUE COPY

Prameela Sreedharan v. Nalini Sreenivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prameela Sreedharan v. Nalini Sreenivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kunjappan Vs Food Inspector,Kozhikode

Vikraman Vs the State of Kerala

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs Kerala State

Varghese Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Abbas Vs the State of Kerala