RASHEED, S/O MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 498A I.P.C in C.C 168 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. The case relates to commission of suicide by his wife Rasiya on 10.10.1996. She was married by him on 23.4.1995. The prosecution would allege that Rasiya had been subjected to much mental and physical harassment by her husband and the mother-in-law, and she committed suicide due to the said cruelty and harassment. Accordingly the prosecution brought final report against the husband and also the mother-in-law, under Section 498A I.P.C. The crime was initially registered as a case of unnatural death on the first information statement given by a person of the locality. The revision petitioner and his mother appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 498A I.P.C. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and also projected a defence that Rasiya had some mental problems, for which she had been undergoing treatment, and she committed suicide due to the mental problems. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(2.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the 2nd accused (mother) not guilty, and accordingly she was acquitted, but the 1st accused was found guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.1.2002, the 1st accused approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A 95/200 In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the 1st accused has come up in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire materials, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Of the eight witnesses examined in the trial court, PW2 is the father of the deceased and PW3 is her mother. PW5 and PW6 are the brothers of the deceased. PW1 is a person of the locality who made the Ext.P1 complaint. Of course, he does not know anything about the reason for the commission of suicide, and he also does not know whether there had been anything wrong between the accused and his wife during their matrimony. On the basis of what he gathered, that Rasiya accidentally fell in the well, he made the complaint. There is nothing in his evidence in favour of the prosecution or against the prosecution.