Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld on concurrent findings supported by victim and corroborative witness evidence; sentence reduced on grounds of proportionality.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha, and the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-I, Alappuzha, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC') are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that ever since the marriage of the petitioner with PW1 on 21.04.2001, the petitioner had been subjecting PW1 to physical and mental cruelty stating the inadequacy of dowry brought by her and also by subjecting her to body shaming by saying that she was not good looking. The father and mother of the petitioner, who were arraigned as accused Nos.2 & 3 in the final report, allegedly gave support to the petitioner in perpetrating cruelty upon PW1. In connection with the aforesaid case, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalappuzha, laid the final report against the petitioner and his parents for the commission of offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and brought on record five documents as Exts P1 to P5. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The parents of the petitioner, who were arraigned as accused Nos.2 & 3, were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 testified before the Trial Court about the physical and mental cruelty meted out to PW1 at the instance of the petitioner. PW1, the victim, categorically narrated before the Trial Court about the ordeals of severe physical and mental cruelty suffered by her from the petitioner for several years. PW2, the brother of PW1, had also stated before the Trial Court about the instances of physical tortures perpetrated upon PW1 by the petitioner. He stated that on one occasion when he came to the matrimonial home of PW1, he could notice the marks of injuries upon the body of PW1, which she narrated as caused by the petitioner. PW3, a neighbour of the petitioner, also stated about the cruelty on the part of the petitioner in his behaviour with PW1. It is by relying on the aforesaid evidence that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC. The concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard, are not liable to be overturned in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by adverting to the evidence of PW1, argued that a false charge of matrimonial cruelty is slapped against the petitioner to try whether money could be extracted from him. According to the learned counsel, the statement of PW1 that she was ready to settle the case, if the petitioner returns her 22 sovereigns of gold and the balance amount of Rs.56,250/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- paid at the time of marriage, would give sufficient indication about the coercive tactics of PW1 to extract money from the