The prosecution must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific acts of cruelty to establish guilt under Section 498A of the IPC; hearsay evidence is insufficient.

JUDGMENT

A. Badharudeen, J.

The 3rd accused in S.C. No. 203 of 2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, finding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In this matter, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, thirty days of default imprisonment also was imposed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the trial court.

3. The points arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Where the trial court is right in holding that the 3rd accused/appellant committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC?

2. Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict of the trial court?

3. The order to be passed?

4. Tracing the genesis of the prosecution case, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 r/w 34 of IPC by accused Nos. 1 to 3 .Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the 3rd accused, and the 3rd accused is the husband of Ajitha, who committed suicide at her parental home. After investigation, police filed final report alleging commission of the said offences, and later the case was committed to the sessions court and in turn made over the same to the Additional Sessions Court.

5. The learned Additional Sessions judge framed charge for the said offences and tried the accused. PWs1 to 13 examined, and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. During prosecution evidence itself, Exts. D1 to D3 also were marked on the side of the accused. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 were questioned uaander Section 313(i)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances against them brought in evidence. Although the accused were then provided with opportunity of defence evidence, they did not adduce any defence evidence.

6 . Later on appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the 3rd accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC while acquitting him for the other offences. The trial court also acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for all the offences.

7. In this case, while pursuing acquittal of the 3rd accused/appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court relied on the evidence of PWs1 to S to find that the 3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. But he would point out that on perusal of the evidence given by PWs1 to S, the same do not contain anything to attract the offence of cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant, on perusal of the evidence, the allegations are demand of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the premise that, at the time of marriage between the 3rd accused and the deceased, it was offered to give 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But only 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given. The second allegation is that the accused persons compelled the deceased to abort the two months old pregnancy of the deceased. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant that there is no convincing evidence forthcoming to see any act of cruelty at the instance of the 3rd accused, even after scrutinizing the entire evidence. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, and the verdict would require interference.

8. Opposing the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, going by the evidence of PWs 1 to S, demand of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments more as dowry and compulsion to abort the t