Kerala High Court
Praveen Kumar @ Kannan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
2026:KER:15653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 573 OF 2018
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2017 IN Crl.A NO.521 OF
2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2014 IN CC NO.116 OF 2010 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
PRAVEEN KUMAR @ KANNAN
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.LATE CHIDAMBARAN,VALLASERY HOUSE, RMD CHIRA
AREA, MALIPURAM P.O., ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682511
BY SRI.VISHNU PREMKUMAR - AMICUS CURIAE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.MAYA M N -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 5.2.2026, THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 2
CR
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The revision petitioner who is the 1st accused in
C.C.No.116/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I,
Kochi and who is the 1st appellant in Crl.A No.521/2014 of Sessions
Court, Ernakulam calls into the question the conviction and sentence
against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, IPC).
2. The revision petitioner and his mother faced trial for
the offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC on the allegation that
he and his mother subjected his wife to cruelty, demanding dowry.
3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint laid by PW1, Ext.P5 FIR was
registered. After investigation, PW7 filed final report against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34
IPC.
4. Accused abjured the guilt and faced trial.
5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined
PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exts.P1 to P8(a). No oral evidence was
adduced on the side of the accused. Exts.D1 to D4 namely the portions
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 3
of first information statement and 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked
on his side. MO1 wood stick was also marked.
6. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was
examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied all the
incriminating evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent.
7. On an appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary,
the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 498A r/w
Section 34 of IPC and both the accused were convicted and sentenced
and the revision petitioner/A1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months.
8. In the appeal preferred by both the accused, as Crl.A
No.521/2014, A2 was acquitted. The conviction against A1 was
confirmed in appeal. But the sentence against him was modified into
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month.
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner/A1 has preferred this revision, contending that the trial court
and the appellate court went wrong in analysing the evidence in its
correct perspective; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to
appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint by PW1, which itself would
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 4
show that the case canvassed by PW1 is false; that the trial court and
the appellate court failed to appreciate the inconsistencies in the
versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged cruelty and
therefore the conviction and sentence passed against the revision
petitioner/A1 is unsustainable and it is to be set aside.
10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its
correct perspective and there are no reasons at all to interfere with the
finding of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/A1.
11. When this revision petition came up for hearing, there was no
representation for the revision petitioner and accordingly, this Court
appointed Advocate Sri.Vishnu Premkumar as amicus curiae and both
sides were heard.
12. The point for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the
revision petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 498A IPC warrants
any interference by this Court?
13. Before answering this point, we have to bear in mind that the
revisional power of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC is not
to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court,
whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or
untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or
where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 5
are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise
of their revisional jurisdiction.
14. Keeping in mind the above well-settled principle, let us analyse
the evidence on record.
15. PW1 is the wife of revision petitioner/A1 and she is the defacto
complainant. Ext.P3 is the marriage certificate. According to PW1, after
the marriage, while she was residing in the matrimonial home, the
revision petitioner/A1 and his mother used to harass and manhandle
her, demanding dowry. Her further version is that while she was in the
first trimester of her pregnancy, the revision petitioner/A1 beat her with
the frame of a tube light and caused injuries to her; and on that day in
order to save herself from the further attack of the accused, she had to
take refuge in the neighbouring house, namely in the house of PW2. On
the next day morning, upon getting information about the incident, her
mother took her to the hospital and she was admitted in the hospital.
According to her, after discharge from the hospital, she had gone to her
parental home. Thereafter in the 3rd trimester of her pregnancy,
pursuant to a mediation talk, she returned to the matrimonial home.
Her further version is that after the birth of the child also, A1 used to
manhandle her and caused injuries and she had undergone treatment at
General Hospital, Ernakulam. Subsequently, she laid complaint to the
police and Ext.P1 is the first information statement given by her. She
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 6
has also testified that the accused misappropriated her two sovereigns of
gold ornaments. Her specific version is that revision petitioner/A1
physically and mentally harassed her demanding dowry, which
compelled her to lay Ext.P1 complaint to the police.
16. PW2, is a neighbour of the accused. The evidence of PW1
that on 13.4.2009 she was beaten up by the revision petitioner/A1
receives corroboration from the version of PW2. He too testified that on
a day when the accused assaulted PW1, she took refuge in his house
and thereafter her mother took her to the hospital. The version of PW2
is in tandem with the version of PW1 that one day when A1 manhandled
her, she had to take refuge in the house of PW2.
17. PW3 is another neighbour of the accused. He has testified that
on 13.4.2009, he had witnessed the incident of accused attacking PW1.
PW3 has further testified that due to the assault of the accused, PW1 fell
down; that he had intervened and took her to the house of PW2. Thus
the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the incident on 13.4.2009
corroborates each other.
18. Ext.P8(a) is the wound certificate issued by PW8 doctor after
examining PW1 on 14.4.2009. In Ext.P8(a) wound certificate, the doctor
has noted the following injuries:
I) Abrasion on different parts of body of varying sizes.
II) Muscle tenderness both thighs, both legs, both foot and
right side face.
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 7
19. Ext.P8(a) wound certificate would show that PW1 was
admitted in the hospital on 14.4.2009 at 8.30 pm with the injuries noted
in Ext.P8(a) and she was discharged on 27.4.2009. According to PW1, it
was after discharge from the hospital, she laid Ext.P1 first information
statement to the police. Ext.P8(a) would also reveal that PW1 was
referred to gynecologist as she was pregnant then. Ext.P8(a) wound
certificate coupled with the evidence of PW8 doctor fortifies the version
of PW1 that on 13.4.2009 she sustained injuries due to the assault of
the accused.
20. The contention put forward by the accused that the delay in
lodging Ext.P1 complaint is fatal to the prosecution case is untenable.
21. Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence, as the suffering of
the victim does not end with a single isolated incident but continues so
long as oppressive conduct persists. Harassment and cruelty within the
marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the
context of continuous conduct.
22. In V.K.Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakand and
another (2015) 9 SCC 588) the Apex Court observed that cruelty in a
matrimonial relationship often consists of repeated acts and each such
act contributes to a continuing offence.
23. In cases of matrimonial cruelty, several compelling reasons
account for the delay in reporting. A woman may hope for reconciliation
and the preservation of the marriage. Her family may pressurise her to
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 8
tolerate abuse for the sake of matrimonial harmony. The social stigma
attached to approaching the police against one’s husband may also be a
reason for the delay. Yet another reason may be her economic
dependence and her concern for her children. Another reason may be
her emotional trauma from further victimisation. The reasons are not
exhaustive. There may be other reasons also. For the above reasons,
the victims often endure cruelty silently for long periods before
approaching legal authorities. Therefore, the delay in reporting the
matrimonial cruelty does not by itself necessarily erode the credibility of
the complaint, provided the prosecution version is otherwise found to be
believable.
24. The testimony of a victim of matrimonial cruelty must be
appreciated with sensitivity, and realism and a hyper-technical approach
in such matters would defeat the very object of Section 498A IPC.
25. The version of PW1 is natural, cogent and inspires confidence
in the mind of court, and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her
version that the revision petitioner/A1 subjected her to cruelty by
demanding dowry. PW1 is a rustic village woman and therefore the
slight discrepancies in her evidence, while narrating the dates of the
incident, cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case. There is no
reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that the revision
petitioner/A1, who is the husband of PW1 subjected PW1 to matrimonial
cruelty, demanding dowry.
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 9
26. Assaulting the wife in connection with dowry demands is not a
mere domestic dispute but a serious offence rooted in greed, coercion
and gender based violence. When a woman is physically harmed
because she or her family cannot meet the unlawful dowry demands, it
reflects the deliberate and oppressive misuse of power within the
matrimonial home.
27. Now let us see whether the sentence imposed against the
revision petitioner/accused needs any interference by this Court.
28. The sentence awarded to accused as modified by the
appellate court is simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
29. The learned amicus curiae requested this Court to show
some leniency in the matter of sentence.
30. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that
substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year can be
reduced to six months.
31. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in
part as follows, modifying the sentence alone:
a) The conviction against the revision petitioner/
accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC is
confirmed.
Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018 10
b) The sentence against the accused is modified as
follows:
Revision Petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of ₹5,000/-. In default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence.
Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
