The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC, affirming that delay in reporting matrimonial cruelty does not negate the credibility of the victim's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.

The revision petitioner who is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.116/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kochi and who is the 1^st appellant in Crl.A No.521/2014 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam calls into the question the conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).

2. The revision petitioner and his mother faced trial for the offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC on the allegation that he and his mother subjected his wife to cruelty, demanding dowry.

3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint laid by PW1, Ext.P5 FIR was registered. After investigation, PW7 filed final report against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC.

4. Accused abjured the guilt and faced trial.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exts.P1 to P8(a). No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. Exts.D1 to D4 namely the portions of first information statement and 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked on his side. MO1 wood stick was also marked.

6. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent.

7. On an appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and both the accused were convicted and sentenced and the revision petitioner/A1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

8. In the appeal preferred by both the accused, as Crl.A No.521/2014, A2 was acquitted. The conviction against A1 was confirmed in appeal. But the sentence against him was modified into simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/A1 has preferred this revision, contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in analysing the evidence in its correct perspective; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint by PW1, which itself would show that the case canvassed by PW1 is false; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged cruelty and therefore the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/A1 is unsustainable and it is to be set aside.

10.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and there are no reasons at all to interfere with the finding of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/A1.

11. When this revision petition came up for hearing, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and accordingly, this Court appointed Advocate Sri.Vishnu Premkumar as amicus curiae and both sides were heard.

12.The point for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 498A IPC warrants any interference by this Court?

13. Before answer