The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty leading to suicide, affirming that witness credibility cannot be dismissed solely based on their relationship to the victim.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.426 of 1997 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. He was tried for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC . The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW10, and the documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P7, found the petitioner guilty of commission of the aforesaid offence, and convicted and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. Though the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, dismissed the appeal filed by him, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court dated 25.04.2006 in Crl.Appeal No.102/2001 is under challenge in this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case is that, ever since the marriage of the petitioner with late Nafeesa, on 30.01.1992, he had been subjecting the aforesaid Nafeesa to severe cruelty, demanding more money and ornaments as dowry. Ultimately, the aforesaid cruelty meted out to the victim, is said to have resulted in her suicide on 29.11.1993. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

4. The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 498A IPC . PW1 is the brother, and PW2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Nafeesa. PW3 was the uncle of the victim, and PW4, a person residing in the neighbourhood of the house of the victim. All those witnesses testified before the Trial Court about the matrimonial cruelty meted out to late Nafeesa, at the instance of the petitioner. The Appellate Court also found that the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are fully reliable.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all those witnesses are interested witnesses, and therefore, their testimonies are liable to be discarded. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that mere interestedness of the witnesses, itself is not a ground to discard their evidence, if it is not otherwise vitiated. In a case of this nature, where the offence alleged is cruelty meted out to a wife at the instance of her husband, the probable and natural witnesses can only be relatives and neighbours. Therefore, it is not possible to disbelieve the prosecution version for the sole reason that the witnesses were interested. The learned counsel further argued that there was inordinate delay, and hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was bad in the eye of law. On this point, the Trial Court had already held, in paragraph 13 of the judgment, that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the cognizance being taken by the Magistrate. The decision rendered by this Court inSreedharan v. State of Kerala ( 1999 (1) KLJ 171 ) has been relied on by the Trial Court in support of the aforesaid view. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on the above matter cannot be interfered with in this revision proceedings. On going through the judgments of the courts below and also the relevant records pertaining to the case, I am of the view that no interference is warranted upon the finding of conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC .

6. Another reason canvassed by the learned defence counsel for interference with the findings of the courts below is that the issue has been settled between the brother of the victim (PW1) and the accused, and a petition has been filed for compounding the offence. I find no merit in the above argument since it is not possible for this Court to give its seal of approval for the compromise in a case of this nature where the victim had termina