High Court Sets Aside 498A Convictions Over Reliance On Police Confession And Family Compromise

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Girish heard a criminal revision petition challenging concurrent convictions under Section 498A I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad in C.C. No.529 of 2002 and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track, Mavelikkara) in Crl.A. No.387 of 2005. The petitioners — husband, his mother and sister — contested their conviction for alleged cruelty and demand for dowry.

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the concurrent convictions and sentences. The court found that the trial and appellate courts had impermissibly relied upon an agreement (Ext.P1) executed before the Viyyapuram police, which amounted to a confession to police and was therefore legally invalid. The court also relied on a subsequent Family Court compromise which, the High Court held, showed that there was no subsisting grievance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The aforesaid document is legally invalid and not liable to be acted upon by any judicial authority, in view of its inherent defect as a confession made to the police. Without taking note of the above legal infirmity of Ext.P1 ... the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed reliance upon the said document, and ventured to accept the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW3 under the strength of the aforesaid document. Thus, it has to be stated that the appreciation of evidence in the above regard by the Courts below, is perverse and untenable.” The petitioners were acquitted, their bail bonds were cancelled and they were set at liberty.

Background The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on 25.07.1999. The first respondent (the wife) alleged that the petitioners subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, demanded dowry, and misappropriated 26 sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,00,000/-. The Magistrate initially forwarded the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the investigating Sub-Inspector filed a refer report stating that the parties were leading a peaceful family life. The complainant thereafter filed a private complaint before the Magistrate.

At trial the complainant (PW1), her father (PW2) and a neighbour (PW3) supported the prosecution case. The prosecution marked an agreement said to have been signed before the Viyyapuram police as Ext.P1; two defence witnesses and the police refer charge (Ext.D1) were also on record. The Magistrate convicted the petitioners under Section 498A I.P.C. r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to nine months’ simple imprisonment with an order to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners challenged the courts’ reliance on Ext.P1 as a confession made to police and therefore inadmissible. The High Court agreed that the document’s legal infirmity vitiated the evidentiary foundation of the conviction. The court further took note of proceedings in the Family Court, Alappuzha where the complainant had filed O.P. (O.S.) No.829/2006 (05.10.2006) and the matter was disposed of by a compromise decree dated 31.01.2009. The compromise petition and decree (produced as Annexures A5–A7) demonstrated that “the complainant had agreed for filing appropriate applications before this Court in this revision petition for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, as one of the conditions of the compromise,” and that the Family Court had disposed the matter by a compromise “settling fully and finally all the issues between them.” The High Court held that, in those circumstances, there was no justification for enforcing the convictions and that the concurrent findings were liable to be set aside.

In result, the revision petition was allowed, the convictions and sentences under Section 498A r/w Section 34 I.P.C. were set aside, the petitioners were acquitted, their bail bonds were cancelled and they were released.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.REV.PET NO.1979 OF 2007 Case Title: CRL.REV.PET NO.1979 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2006 IN Crl.A NO.387 OF 2005 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2005 IN CC NO.529 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri R. Suraj Kumar; Smt. V. Beena; Smt. V. Deepa For the Respondent(s): Sri A. Shafeek (Kayamkulam); Sri Renjit George, Senior Public Prosecutor