Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed a criminal appeal filed against the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the elements of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC and found the conviction unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, ordering the acquittal of the accused. The bench directed that any fine amount deposited by the appellants be refunded in accordance with law.

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 to 3 in SC.No.299/2006 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc II), Kozhikode, challenged their conviction under Section 498-A IPC. The prosecution alleged that after the marriage solemnized on 28.03.2004, the appellants ill-treated and harassed PW1, the complainant, citing her lack of beauty and insufficient dowry. Allegations included misappropriation of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs received as dowry, and forcing the complainant to abort her fetus.

Also Read: PSU Cannot Deny Partnership Recognition Over Non-Participation Of All Heirs | Supreme Court Raps IOCL For Misreading Policy And Acting Arbitrarily After Partner’s Death

The prosecution invoked Sections 498-A, 313, 406, 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC. Following the investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC. The Additional Sessions Court framed charges, and the accused pleaded not guilty.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked documents as Exts.P1 to P5. After closure of prosecution evidence and recording statements under Section 313 CrPC, the defence examined one witness (DW1) and marked Exts.D1 to D4. The trial court acquitted accused No. 4 and found accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty under Section 498-A IPC while acquitting them of other charges. They were sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.

The appellants contended that the conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW1, which they argued lacked consistency and credibility. It was submitted that the essential ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC were not made out, and the solitary testimony of PW1, marred by contradictions, could not sustain a conviction.

The court recorded that "virtually, the evidence that the prosecution relies on to prove the acts of cruelty is the sole evidence of PW1." It added that "in cases relating to domestic violences, it is not prudent to look for independent corroboration for the evidence of a victim." However, the court stressed that "the court must act with much care and circumspection" when relying on solitary evidence.

The court noted that while PW1 alleged that the accused misappropriated her gold and cash, she and her parents admitted that these were voluntarily handed over, and no demand for their return was made. As such, "the prosecution failed to prove that the accused misappropriated the gold ornaments or cash of PW1."

Regarding the forced abortion allegation, the court pointed out that "no documentary evidence, whatsoever, was produced... to prove that on 21.11.2004, PW1 was taken to Malabar Hospital." Further, PW4, the doctor who examined PW1, "testified that it was actually on 20.11.2004 that PW1 had approached her with a scan report." Ext.D4 corroborated this.

The court remarked that "PW1 purposefully suppressed the fact that she met PW4, the doctor, on 20.11.2004." and that "PW4 further opined that missed abortion can occur due to various reasons, and one of the reasons is genetic defect." Crucially, "PW4 stated that the patient was perfectly calm and cool, and exhibited no symptoms of having taken pills."

In assessing the reliability of the testimony regarding physical assault, the court held: "no materials whatsoever have been produced... to show that any of the accused physically assaulted PW1." The court also recorded that "even PW1 is not having a case that she had sought any medical care or undergone any inpatient treatment in connection with the alleged physical assault."

Summarising its reasoning, the court stated: "Not every instance of harassment and ill-treatment amounts to cruelty... Only those acts that fall within the 1st and the 2nd limb of the explanation to Section 498-A... would qualify." It added: "A single act may suffice... if it is severe enough to meet the legal definition of cruelty."

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence Under POCSO And Section 377 IPC | Says Victim’s Testimony Alone Sufficient To Prove Sexual Assault On 6-Year-Old

However, based on the contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence, the court concluded: "the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused administered pills forcefully, and this act led to a miscarriage." It continued: "As the main act of cruelty alleged... is unproven, convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC would be unjustified, especially since the other alleged acts... remain unsubstantiated."

The court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. It stated: "Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is set aside, and they are acquitted."

Further, the court ordered: "Fine amount, if any, has been deposited by the appellants/accused; the same shall be refunded to them in accordance with law."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. T.G. Rajendran, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Alex M. Thombra, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Sajudheen and Others v. State of Kerala

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:47231

Case Number: CRL.A No. 2913 of 2008

Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian