Insufficient evidence can lead to reversal of misappropriation conviction, while credible testimony on dowry harassment can uphold convictions under IPC.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2025)

The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioners under Sections 406 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC .

2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in CC No. 221/2002 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Parappanangadi. They, along with another accused stood trial before that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 r/w

34 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows;

The 1^st accused married PW1 on 14.03.2002.

Thereafter, while living together in the house of the accused, the accused three in number, in furtherance of their common intention, misappropriated Rs.50,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments out of the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to PW1 at the time of the marriage. It is also alleged that, the accused subjected PW1 to cruelty demanding more gold and money as dowry.

4. The trial court on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record found the 3^rd accused not guilty of the offences alleged and acquitted her. But it found the 1st accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 . Accordingly, it sentenced the 1^st accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under . It also sentenced the 1^st accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under , with a default clause and the 2^nd accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under .

5. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.369/2010 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The said court by judgment dated

30.07.2015 dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the events are mired with contradictions and there is no credible evidence to prove the factum of misappropriation, as alleged by the prosecution. He also argued that the evidence of PW1 would go to show that she is not having a consistent version regarding the events and that the medical evidence adduced does not support the prosecution case.

8. Per contra, the learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

9. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the 1^st accused, the husband of PW1 has been convicted under Section 406 IPC on the ground that he has misappropriated Rs.50,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments from out of the 50 sovereigns given to PW1 at the time of marriage. PW1 the victim and PW2 her brother stated that the 1^st accused has thus taken away the gold ornaments belonging to PW1 on different occasions by making PW1 believe that the money thus obtained by selling the ornaments will be used for the construction of a residential house. It is to be taken note that as regards this allegation, the only evidence available is that of PW1 and evidence of PW2 on this aspect is nothing, but hearsay. Further, the evidence of PW1 does not show as to when and how much quantity of gold ornaments, the 1^st accused has thus taken away from her and where