Matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A IPC upheld despite minor contradictions, based on victim's corroborated testimony of dowry demands and assault.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, and the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Ernakulam, in C.C.No.821/2000 & Crl.A.No.458/2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the first petitioner, who married PW1 on 09.01.2000, subjected her to cruelty, along with the petitioners 2 & 3, who are his parents, by physically and mentally torturing PW1 demanding more dowry. As part of the above tortures, the petitioners are alleged to have inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 at 05:30 p.m., on 26.06.2000, while she was pregnant, and expelled her from the residence of the petitioners.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on records two documents as Exts P1 & P2. One defence witness was examined as DW1 and three defence documents were marked as Exts D1 to D3. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them thereunder. Accordingly, the petitioners were sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and also fine of Rs.50,000/- upon the first petitioner with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months, and fine of Rs.10,000/- each upon the second and third petitioners with a default clause of simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that, if the fine amount is realised, it shall be paid as compensation to the de facto complainant/PW1. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the petitioners, notice was issued to the petitioners intimating the adjournment of the case and also informing them that the case would be decided in their absence, if there is no representation from their part on the adjourned posting date. The notice to the third petitioner was returned with the endorsement that ‘the addressee is no more’. The notice to the petitioners 1 & 2 were duly served. Since the petitioners 1 & 2 did not appear even after the receipt of the notice, Adv. Ms. Nanda Surendran was appointed as Amicus curiae to represent the revision petitioners.

5. When the case was taken up for hearing, the counsel who had been earlier appearing for the petitioners expressed his willingness to argue the case. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned counsel who had been appearing for the petitioners were heard from the part of the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor was heard from the part of the respondent.

6. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court mainly relied on the evidence of the de facto complainant who was examined as PW1 to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the act of the accused perpetrating matrimonial cruelty upon PW1. In addition to that, the evidence tendered by two witnesses as PW2 & PW3 that they had seen PW1 outside the front gate of the house of the accused after her expulsion from that house on 26.06.2000, was also relied on by the courts below. The evidence adduced by PW4, t