ORDER :

The revision petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.162/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam and the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.445/2005 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode Division. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused being the brother and parents of CW2 Mukundan who is the husband of PW1 subjected her to cruelty demanding more ornaments and money. PW1 complained that the accused 1 to 3 did not permit her to cohabit with her husband while she was residing along with the accused 1 to 3 at her matrimonial house. She was referred to the mediation by PW5 and others and accordingly she was taken to the matrimonial home on 15.4.1996. Thereafter, the accused 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention physically and mentally harassed her by demanding more money and property from her.

3. On the appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charge was read over to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

4. To bring home the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 and Exts.D1 and D2 on the side of the accused. CW2 Mukundan, CW3, 6, 7 and 11 were given up by the prosecution. CW17 reported no more. CW18 was not produced by the prosecution as directed by the court. Hence his examination was dispensed with.

5. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The 1st accused stated that CW2 Mukundan was mentally ill at the time of his marriage with PW1. PW1 was aware of the fact that CW2 was a mentally challenged person. The Doctor who examined CW2 advised PW1 that after the marriage, the mental illness of CW2 would be cured and believing the advise of the Doctor, PW1 married CW2. The 1st accused maintained that they did not harass PW1 as alleged by her. To prove the defence version, Ext.D1 Advocate notice and Ext.D2 reply notice were furnished.

6. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction of the accused 1 to 3 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the sentence imposed on the 1st accused was modified to simple imprisonment for six months and sentence against the accused 2 and 3 was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Further, the accused 1 to 3 were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/-each as compensation to PW1 failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners are before this Court.

7. Heard Sri.Arjun Sreedhar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri.Arjun Sreedhar submitted that neither the averments in the complaint nor the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It is further contended that Ext.P3 complaint was only against the 1st accused and the 2nd and 3rd accused were implicated unnecessarily. Elaborating on the submission, the le