IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 11TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2006 IN CRA 288/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2005 IN CC 548/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

NIYAS, AARAMATHU HOUSE, NEELIKULAM MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CR

ORDER

It is a case wherein the accused (the husband and the sister-in-law) were charge sheeted by the police for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. The allegation is that at the residence of the defacto complainant PW1/the wife, the husband raised a demand for more dowry and assaulted her. It is not mentioned or spoken to by PW1 or any of the witnesses examined from the side of prosecution the nature of the assault on the defacto complainant. It is not specified the nature of assault alleged to have been done by the accused towards the defacto complainant. The learned prosecutor tried to advance a case that it may be an assault by hitting on her body. But no such case was advanced. It is not explained the nature of assault on her by the accused. Admittedly, there is no evidence to show any kind of assault or any injury received by her on such assault. No medical evidence was produced. In fact, she did not have any case that she had gone to any hospital in connection with the alleged incident or received any injury on the alleged assault. Only the near relatives of the wife/PW1 and her mother were examined besides the official witnesses. In order to bring up a case punishable under Section 498A, it must be satisfied that the husband or his relatives subjected the woman, the wife, with cruelty. For the purpose of cruelty, an explanation was attached to Section 498A as under:

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

or (b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

(emphasis supplied)

2. The cruelty within the meaning of Section

498A IPC consists of two clauses (a) and (b) within the Explanation attached to that Section. The clause (a) explains “cruelty” within its sphere any wilful conduct from the part of husband or the relative of husband as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental. It is by way of clause (b), even a “harassment” to the woman was brought under the purview of “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC, if such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand, which would by itself show that the “harassment” must be of such a nature to exert compulsion with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demand for property or valuable security. N