C.A. Ibrahim vs State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police

Justice S. Siri Jagan

The 1st accused in C.C. No. 380/1994 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Kasaragod is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 342 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was as follows:- PW 1 (the defacto complainant) was legally married to the 1st accused on 22.2.1988. After marriage, both resided at the house of the 1st accused as husband and wife where the other accused also were residing. All the accused jointly subjected the complainant to cruelty by demanding dowry and also they inflicted injuries on her, for not complying with such demand. Since a complaint filed by PW 1 before the police did not evoke any response, she filed a complaint before the court. That was referred to the police u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Crime No. 425/1994 was registered at the Kasaragod Police Station pursuant thereto. On completing the investigation, charge was laid for the offence alleged against the petitioner. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exts. P1 to P4 documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner u/s 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) with a default of sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted u/s 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 133/99 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Kasaragod, who confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below. The only contention raised by the petitioner before me is that there is no acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence of the petitioner. According to him, the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that apart from the interested testimony of PW 1, the wife, there is no independent evidence to prove the offence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of PW 1 is riddled with contradictions. Therefore, it was not safe to convict the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 alone, is the contention raised. On such contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues for setting aside the judgments of the courts below and acquittal of the petitioner.

In answer, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgments of the courts below. The Public Prosecutor contends that PW 1 has given evidence to the effect that demanding more dowry the 1st accused has physically and mentally harassed her, which evidence is cogent and convincing. There is no law that such evidence should be discarded as interested. He points out that there is no contradiction as such in the evidence of PW 1. The alleged contradiction is between the evidence given in court and the statement given before the Police. But, the petitioner has neither cross examined PW 1 on such contradiction nor has he cared to mark any contradiction in respect of the same through the investigating officer. As such, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that there are contradictions in the deposition of PW 1, is the contention raised. It is further pointed out that PW 3 had given evidence to the effect that he had seen the petitioner beating PW 1. He did not support in some other aspects of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile and in the cross examination by the petitioner himself, PW 3 reiterated that he saw the 1st accused beating PW 1 near the well in the house of the accused. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW 1 shows that she was being harassed demanding the dowry and she was physically beaten for not bringing in additional dowry. With that evidence, the courts below was perfectly justified in entering the conviction is the contention raised.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

As I have already stated, the only ground raised is regarding sufficiency of the evidence available for convicting the petitioner. In exercise of my powers u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C. I cannot re-appreciate the evidence but, can only consider whether the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is demonstrably perverse. In this case, PW 1 has given evidence in graphic detail that the 1st accused had demanded additional dowry and in the name of additional dowry, PW 1 had been physically and mentally tortured. Despite elaborate cross examination, the petitioner could not bring out any discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that PW 1''s evidence before the court is contradictory to the statements given before the police, PW 1 has not been cross examined on such alleged contradiction nor has such contradiction been marked through the investigating officer. Without the same, the petitioner cannot now contend that the evidence of PW 1 in court runs contrary to the statements given by her before the Police. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW 3, both in chief examination and in cross examination by the petitioner himself, asserted that he had seen the 1st accused manhandling the PW 1. It is pertinent to note here that despite having been declared hostile, he stuck to his version in the chief examination that he saw the 1st accused beating the PW 1 even in cross examination by the petitioner. The fact that, that was reiterated in cross examination by the petitioner himself assumes importance in this regard. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction entered by the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a fervent plea for reducing the sentence of imprisonment. I am of opinion that the sentence of imprisonment for three months is not at all excessive calling for interference at my hands.

In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Revision Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.