IMPORTANT POINT
A marriage under personal law can invoke protections under Section 498A, even if later deemed invalid, as long as there is a semblance of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4 in SC No.325 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta, challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, vide judgment dated 04.05.2007.

2. The prosecution case is that, Asmabi, an 18 year old girl who was the wife of the 1st accused, committed suicide on 19.06.2002 due to the matrimonial cruelties meted out to her, by the accused persons, who are her husband and in-laws, and also due to the harassment on demand of dowry.

3. The accused persons (4 in number) were chargesheeted by Dy.SP, Kalpetta, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. After committal and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, charge was framed against them under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. From the side of prosecution, PWs 1 to 24 were examined, Exts.P1 to P14 were marked and MOs 1 to 3 were identified.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record and pleaded innocence. Except marking of Exts.D1 to D5 contradictions through prosecution witnesses, no evidence was adduced from the side of accused.

7. On analysing the facts and evidence and on hearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court found that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304B and 306 of IPC and so, they were acquitted thereunder. But, they were found guilty under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and each of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

9. Appellants 1 to 4 can be referred as accused Nos.1 to 4 for the purpose of convenience.

10. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that Asmabi, a girl aged 18 years, who was the daughter of PW3, committed suicide on 19.06.2002, by consuming poison. The prosecution case is that, Asmabi was a Hindu by religion and her real name was Divya. She fell in love with the 1st accused Abdul Khader and she became pregnant from him. Accused Nos.2 and 3, the parents of the 1st accused, aborted her pregnancy forcibly in the hospital of PW7-Doctor Chakrapani. When her parents came to know about her love affair with the 1st accused and abortion of her pregnancy, the religious leaders of both communities mediated, and decided to convert Miss.Divya into an Islam for conducting her marriage with the 1st accused, as per Muslim rites and custom. She was taken to Ponnani for conversion and she embraced Muslim faith, and received the name Asmabi. Her marriage could not be conducted then, as she was a minor at that time. She was taken back from Ponnani, and after undergoing religious teachings, her Nikah with the 1st accused was solemnised and thereafter she started living with the 1st accused as his wife, along with his parents and siblings.

11. Life of Asmabi in the house of the 1st accused was miserable as they ill-treated her physically as well as mentally and they harassed her, on demand of dowry as well. Meanwhile, a marriage agreement was registered between her and the 1st accused, on 10.06.2002. Unable to bear the ill-treatment from the part of the accused persons, Smt.Asmabi committed suicide by consuming poison.

12. Since the accused were acquitted of the offences alleged under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC, and no appeal has been preferred by prosecution against that acquittal, it has become final, and so, this Court is not expected to reconsider the evidence, with respect to those offences.

13. In thi