The judgment reaffirms that dowry-related cruelty under IPC Section 498A is a serious offense, validated by credible victim testimony and social realities of domestic abuse.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

1. The revision petitioner/accused has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that, accused who is the husband of the defacto complainant subjected her to cruelty and continuously harassed her mentally and physically demanding dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

3. The law was set in motion by the defacto complainant by lodging Ext.P1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Manjeri, which in turn was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to SHO, Karuvarakundu Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, pursuant to which PW6 registered Crime 104/2009 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. PW10, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Karuvarakundu Police Station conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation he filed final report against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Manjeri for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 498A IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine Rs.10,000/- with default custodial sentence of three months. Aggrieved by the said finding of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.217/2016 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the conviction against him for the offence under Section 498A IPC was confirmed but the sentence was modified. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 6 months; the fine imposed by the trial court has been left undisturbed.

6. On account of the absence of the counsel who filed the revision petition, this Court appointed Advocate Anu Krishna T.U. as amicus curiae to assist the court.

7. Both sides were heard.

8. Accused assails the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of IPC; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses and also failed to take note of the fact that though the case of the defacto complainant was that she was subjected to cruelty from 2003 onwards, no complaint was lodged by her till the year 2009 and she was residing with the accused/revision petitioner without lodging any complaints; and the said conduct casts serious doubt in the prosecution case.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no reasons to discard the credible and consistent versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the ill-treatment, harassment and cruelty subjected by the accused to the victim; that the trial court and the appellate court have analyzed the evidence in its proper perspective and there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of conviction and sentence.

10. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC warrants any interference by t