K.P. Jyothindranath, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent findings in C.C. No. 77/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny and Criminal Appeal No. 88/2002 dated 22.12.2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner is the sole accused in crime No. 97/1998 of Vechoochira Police Station. The offence alleged is under S. 498A of I.P.C. The Trial Court after taking cognizance of the said offence examined 11 witnesses and also marked 10 documents. One witness was examined on the side of defence.

2. The Trial Court after appreciating the materials, convicted the accused under S. 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of` 5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Against the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. After hearing the parties, Appellate Court upheld the conviction and modified and reduced the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of guilty and the sentence now imposed by the Sessions Court, this Revision Petition is filed.

3. As a Revisional Court, the jurisdiction of this court is extremely narrow. This Court can interfere with the findings of the trial court and the Appellate Court only when there is illegality, perversity or caused miscarriage of justice. If the perusal of records reveals that it is a matter where revisional powers are to be used, it can be seen that the power is very wide. If the conclusions of the court below are based on inferences not drawn on established facts and legally legitimate materials, the finding is liable to be set aside. Keeping in mind the permissible parameters provided in a revisional matter, the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below are scrutinised.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts are as follows:

"The wife of the revision petitioner committed suicide by consuming acid on 23.10.1998 at 8 a.m. The marriage between the deceased and the revision petitioner herein was on 20.4.1978 at Lucknow. The allegation is that the petitioner herein was having the habit of consuming liquor with his friends and it was opposed by the wife and there was constant quarrel and in consequence, she consumed acid and committed suicide. The elder daughter of the deceased deposed before the court supporting the prosecution whereas the younger son was examined as DW1 by the defence."

5. In this case, the marriage was on 20.04.1978 and the deceased committed suicide on 23.10.1998. The court charge is that the deceased was not approving the habit of the appellant inviting friends and having liquor party and due to that reason, he mentally and physically harassed the deceased and thereon the deceased committed suicide on 23.10.1998. There is no specific instances of cruelty highlighted in the court charge.

6. The F.I.R. was registered for unnatural death. The brother of the deceased was the informant. As per the F.I. Statement, Sindhu, his nephew, telephoned and informed him that her mom consumed acid. As he reached therein, he found Aravindakshan (revision petitioner); Sindhu and a neighbour, taking the deceased in a jeep and they went to the hospital. She was admitted and treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The Doctor declared the death at 8 a.m. According to him, for the last few days, the deceased was mentally harassed by her husband and it is also stated that she consumed acid kept for preparing rubber sheets. Death occurred at 8 a.m. on 23.10.1998. The First Information Report was prepared on 23.10.1998 at 4 p.m. The inquest conducted on 24.10.1998 at 8.30 a.m. Ext. P4 is the postmortem certificate and the opinion of cause of death is shown as death due to poisoning. It was not a normal death, but death due to consuming acid and it was a suicide. The suic