The court ruled that hearsay evidence does not suffice to prove charges under Section 498A IPC, requiring direct evidence for conviction.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence under Section

498A of the IPC .

2. The petitioner faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC in S.C.No.252/2005 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery (for short, the trial court).

3. The petitioner married one Vineetha on 12.9.2002.

She committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom of her house in between 10 pm on 13.5.2003 and 6.30 am on 14.5.2003. The prosecution case is that it was on account of the physical and mental torture exercised by the petitioner, she committed suicide.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P16 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.

After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the and he was acquitted for the said offence. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalassery (for short, the appellate court) challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. Since there was no representation for the petitioner continuously, this Court appointed Sri. Rahul Sunil as Amicus Curiae.

6. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Sri.Rahul Sunil and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. E.C. Bineesh. I place on record the able assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Sri. Rahul Sunil.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no direct evidence to prove the alleged cruelty exercised by the petitioner towards the deceased and the evidence of PW2, PW6, PW7 and PW8 relied on by the trial court as well as the appellate court is hearsay in nature and not admissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short, the Act). The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that Ext.P9 letter had not been proved in accordance with law and the content of the same does not fall within Section 32 (1) of the Act. The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the evidence of PW2, PW6, PW7 and PW8 relied on by the trial court as well as the appellate court to connect the petitioner with the crime is full of omissions and contradictions. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra [2002 KHC 600] .

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that the necessary ingredients of Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. In order to attract Section 498A of IPC , the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman must subject such woman to cruelty. The explanation to the said Section describes what is cruelty. Explanation (a) says that cruelty means 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. Explanation (b) says that cruelty means 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