Credible witness testimonies can substantiate claims of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, ensuring victim compensation.

O R D E R

Revision Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.15/1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal. His wife, Santhi, prosecuted him along with both his parents (accused 2 and 3), accusing offence under Section 498 A IPC , with a plea that the revision petitioner married the 2nd respondent/ complainant in accordance with the customary rites and that at the time of marriage gold ornaments weighing 25 sovereigns and a sum of Rs.20,000/- were given to the revision petitioner as Sthreedhanam. The revision petitioner, who is a spend thrift, spent the money and gold ornaments.

Thereafter, he started to illtreat the 2nd respondent and she was assaulted by kicking and beating after holding at the tuft of her hair.

2. Responding to the process, all the accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty. They were sent for trial. On the side of the 2nd respondent, PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P2 were marked. They denied the incriminating evidence when questioned under Section 313 CrPC. The revision petitioner entered the witness box and denied the assault alleged. As DW1 he would further depose that the 2nd respondent and her parents assaulted him. Trial Court disbelieved DW1 and found that the offence alleged is proved against the revision petitioner. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. Second and third accused were acquitted.

3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, though he preferred Crl.Appeal No.111/1999 he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

4. Heard either side.

5. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that on 27/2/1994, the revision petitioner after being drunk, brutally assaulted the 2nd respondent by beating and fisting. He had been demanding that an item of property in the name of the 2nd respondent should be conveyed to him. On 9/4/1994 also, the revision petitioner demanding conveyance of the property fisted and beaten her after catching at the tuft of her hair and also stamped. It was also alleged that on one occasion she was even hit with a stone at her private parts. On 9/4/1994, she was admitted to Valiyakunnu Govt. Hospital and had undergone treatment for ten days. In support of that plea, the 2nd respondent as PW1 had given evidence. Exhibit P1 treatment certificate and Exhibit P2, the relevant pages of impatient register were relied upon in support of the assault. PW1 withstood cross-examination.

6. PW2, a neighbour, had also given supporting evidence. He had witnessed the assault on 27/2/1994 and 9/4/1994. Though PW2 was subjected to searching cross-examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve him. PW3, the father of the 2nd respondent, had given evidence basing upon a hearsay information regarding cruelty. Therefore, regarding the cruelty, evidence of PW3 is not admissible. But he would corroborate with the evidence of PW1 that she was admitted in the hospital and that she had undergone treatment.

7. The 2nd respondent has also got a case that the revision petitioner had illicit relationship with one Jalaja and that the 2nd respondent was manhandled when she advised the revision petitioner to discontinue his relationship with Jalaja. On the other hand, the revision petitioner would allege that the 2nd respondent had got illicit relationship with PW2. But when PW2 was in the Box, no such question was put to him. Therefore, it appears that the story of illicit relationship between the 2nd respondent and PW2 is a baseless allegation amounting to mental cruelty.

8. Carefully going through the evidence of PWs

1 and 2, I find little reason to disbelieve PWs 1 and 2. It doesn't appear to be a case of false implication. The courts below in finding the revision petitioner guilty, as stated earlier, believed the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. I find no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the cou