JUDGMENT 1. Following is the brief account of the prosecution case: (a) P.W.1 is wife of first accused. Second accused is mother of A1. The marriage of first accused with P.W.1 was celebrated on 9.11.1998 in Naidu Mahajana Sangam at Trichy. On 26.8.1998 betrothal was celebrated for which P.W.2, father of P.W.1 spent about Rs. 50,000/-. For marriage he spent around Rs. 2,00,000/- besides offering dowry of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels to P.W.1 and 10 sovereigns of gold jewels to bridegroom and also he paid Rs. 15,000/- for his dress. He also provided household articles. P.W.1 lodged Exhibit P-1 complaint with the respondent police narrating the events which happened aftermath their marriage. Both parents of A1 used to find fault with P.W.1 even for petty things and subject her to cruelty and they prevented to speak to her parents. One month after marriage she was conceived and they adopted so many ways to abort the pregnancy by giving medicines, papaya, gingili, etc., But she avoided them. When her father came to see her, her father-in-law necked him out and closed the gate. Her husband also behaved like a psycho. In order to satisfy his parents he used to beat her and abuse her in filthy language. A male child was born to her on 1.10.1999. (b) The first accused was in the habit of harassing her in the night times stating that the cot and bed were not convenient. She again conceived in 2000 and she was compelled to abort the pregnancy by her in-laws. She suffered over-bleeding and hence she was taken to her parents house by her husband. Her parents saved her by taking treatment with Dr. Ramani Devi. Her father-in-law used to go here and there inside the house in naked pose and he was taking bath in front of her. When she asked her mother-in-law about this, she told that at least on seeing it, she might have left the matrimonial home. They provided limited food to her and prevented her giving milk to her child. So, A1 insisted her to live separately and they lived in the first floor of her parent‘s house without advance and rent from 5.1.2002. Thereafter, both of them went to Gujarat. After returning to Trichy, first accused with his parents harassed her, demanding dowry and hence she consumed insecticide. Her father took her to the doctor. So, A1 insisted her to live separately and they lived in the first floor of her parent‘s house without advance and rent from 5.1.2002. Thereafter, both of them went to Gujarat. After returning to Trichy, first accused with his parents harassed her, demanding dowry and hence she consumed insecticide. Her father took her to the doctor. Since the fact of his non completion of B.Sc degree was known to her parents A1 got irritated and demanded further dowry. Her in-laws have taken her 13 sovereigns of gold Kasu Malai and they also asked further dowry. Since A1 was working as R.P.F.(PC) Instructor, he used to go to training once in six months. Her father-in-law often asked her to open the door of the bath room when she took bath and her mother-in-law used to pick up quarrel with her stating that she would seek for another girl for her son and she was also found fault with the lapse committed by servant maid. (c) In 2002 September, A1 and his parents ill-treated her, snatching her child and she was also driven to her parents‘ house. So, on 1.6.2003 she laid a complaint with All Women Police Station. The police enquired and advised them to live separately. Even thereafter, he used to ill-treat her by locking her inside the house and by saying that his parents were dragged to the police station and he also threatened her with a revolver. Presently, she is pregnant by 3 months. Even then he assaulted her. He used to see blue films and insisted her to behave and have intercourse with him like the artists did in the blue film. He also got a blue film cassette containing unnatural sexual intercourse and he also insisted her to have oral sex and anal intercourse. He also harassed her by describing the glamour of women available in sex books. He further told that he was fed up with her and her younger sister had to be married to him as second wife and they had also to pay more dowry. A1 and his parents pressurised to abort her 5 months pregnancy. Hence, she sent a letter to her parents narrating the above said events. (d) On 21.8.2003 A1 was out of station. A1 and his parents pressurised to abort her 5 months pregnancy. Hence, she sent a letter to her parents narrating the above said events. (d) On 21.8.2003 A1 was out of station. Taking advantage of that situation she left the nuptial home with all sridhana properties and jewels and also her child and came to her parents‘ house. She also produces pornographic C.D. cassette and sex book to police. Hence, necessary action may be taken. (e) On receipt of the complaint, P.W.16 Women Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No. 92 of 2003 under Sections 498(A), 313, 292, 377 and 306 I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. She lodged FIR Exhibit P-5. She searched the accused and arrested on 28.3.2003 at 6.00 p.m. in front of Thaila Silk. She also seized the sex books and CD under Mahazar Exhibit P-6. She sent them to Court under Exhibit P-7 Form 95. She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, she laid charge sheet. 2. On the prosecution side, 16 witnesses were examined and 7 exhibits were marked. After the prosecution evidence, both the accused were questioned under Section313 Cr.P.C as regards incriminating materials available in the prosecution evidence. They denied complicity to the offence. On their side, one witness was examined and 15 exhibits were marked. M.Os.1 and 2 were produced on the side of prosecution and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced on the side of the defence. 3. On consideration of the facts and other materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy convicted 1st accused under Section 498-A (a) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. A1 and A2 were found not guilty under Sections 313 IPC, 506(ii) I.P.C. A2 was found not guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and were acquitted from those charges. Aggrieved against the conviction, the appellant/A1 has preferred the present appeal. Point for consideration: “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?”. Point: 4. P.Ws.2 and 4 are parents of P.W.1. Her husband is A1 and his parents are A2 and one Lakshmikumar. The Trial Court has not found A2 guilty of the charges framed against her. Point for consideration: “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?”. Point: 4. P.Ws.2 and 4 are parents of P.W.1. Her husband is A1 and his parents are A2 and one Lakshmikumar. The Trial Court has not found A2 guilty of the charges framed against her. This Court has to scan the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses to ascertain whether there was an element of cruelty on the part of A1 viz., the appellant, perpetrated upon P.W.1. In the complaint P.W.1 has categorically narrated all the events which took place after the marriage. In her chief examination also she has furnished detailed account of the incidents which happened to her, supporting the allegations levelled by her in the complaint. Almost all the allegations contained in the complaint, have been spoken to by her in her chief examination. The appellant is working as constable in Railway Protection Force in Trichy Railway Station. He has participated so many shooting competitions and had come out with flying colours in the competitions. One of the defences raised by the appellant is to the effect that he was aggrieved with his father-in-law P.W.2 over his illicit connection with one Thamarai Selvi allegedly the sister of mother of P.W.1 and she has got three children through P.W.2. On enquiry of the same with P.W.2 he denied. Due to that there was a friction between P.W.1 and 1st accused and it became a disgrace to the family of the accused. P.W.2 denies that Thamarai Selvi is sister of his wife and he is having illicit connection with her. A copy of the complaint lodged by Thamarai Selvi with Trichy Police Station produced as Exhibit D-14, wherein she has alleged that P.W.2 was harassing her and her children. She has mentioned therein that P.W.4 is her elder sister. Even though receipt for the receipt of the complaint given to the police has been produced, it is not stated how the accused came in possession of these documents. Though the records are produced, they remain without proof, nobody connected to Exhibit D-14, was brought to witness box to say about the contents of the document. Hence the consequences of Exhibit D-14 could not be considered adverse to the prosecution side. 5. Though the records are produced, they remain without proof, nobody connected to Exhibit D-14, was brought to witness box to say about the contents of the document. Hence the consequences of Exhibit D-14 could not be considered adverse to the prosecution side. 5. P.Ws.2 and 4, parents of P.W.1 would support the versions of P.W.1 as regards the harassment and cruelty perpetrated upon her by both the accused particularly by A1. P.W.3 is family friend of P.W.2. He would say in his chief examination that the in-laws of P.W.1 demanded Rs. 50,000/- and he also states that the first accused beat P.W.1. But in his cross examination he would depose that the harassment upon P.W.1 made by first accused at Navalpattu is not known to him personally and he came to know them from P.W.2. He is not supporting the versions of P.W.1. 6. Exhibit P-2 series, inland letters sent by P.W.1 addressed to her father plays crucial role in this case. The date of complaint is 28.8.2003. Exhibit P-2 letter was sent on 5.8.2003. In this letter P.W.1 has given the details of her bad experience meted out by her with A1 and his parents. In his letter she has also alleged that her husband is avaricious to have oral sex and in fact he did it and that he wanted her to behave as in the scenes in Blue Films. In this letter she has also alleged all the events which she has narrated in the complaint and in her evidence. P.Ws.2 and 4, her parents, naturally would support the case of their daughter. If this Court appreciates the evidence adduced by P.W.1 independent of the other evidence, it comes to light that the versions given by her against her husband are true. This observation is fully supported by Exhibit P-2 letter. Significantly it is to be noted that there is no material in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the evidence adduced by her in her chief examination. 7. The other prosecution witnesses P.Ws.5 to 10 and 12 who were brought to witness box to support the prosecution case turned hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws.7 and 12 have stated that to their knowledge both P.W.1 and A1 were living happily. Taking advantage of this part of evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. 7. The other prosecution witnesses P.Ws.5 to 10 and 12 who were brought to witness box to support the prosecution case turned hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws.7 and 12 have stated that to their knowledge both P.W.1 and A1 were living happily. Taking advantage of this part of evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai would contend that even though a witness turned hostile to the prosecution, his evidence has to be scrutinised closely and accepted to the extent consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence. In State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur and Others (2004) SCC (Cr) 218 : LNIND 2004 SC 1011 the Honourable Supreme Court has held that it is settled law that the evidence of hostile witness could not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and the portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. 8. In a decision rendered by K.N. Basha, J., in Crl. A. No. 1036 of 2003 dated 22.7.2010 Nagarajan v. State it is observed that the evidence of an independent witness, it was categorically stated that A1 is well-off family and both A1 and the deceased were living happily and cordially without any quarrel between them is to be considered in favour of the accused. 9. It is true no doubt that both of the witnesses P.W.2 and 7 have stated in their chief examination that both P.W.1 and A1 were living happily. But the internal affairs transpired between them could not be known by them. As far as the facts prevailing in this case are concerned, it is the definite statement of P.W.1 that her husband used to see the pornographic films and insisted her to behave with him like postures found therein and that he was also having oral sex with her and he insisted her to have anal sex. There is no room to discard this part of evidence of P.W.1. The cumulative effect of the circumstances would pave way for this Court to place reliance upon those oral testimonies. In this regard, even though P.W.7 and 12 have stated that A1 and PW1 lived happily, it could not prevail the above said evidence of P.W.1. 10. P.W.13 is Dr. The cumulative effect of the circumstances would pave way for this Court to place reliance upon those oral testimonies. In this regard, even though P.W.7 and 12 have stated that A1 and PW1 lived happily, it could not prevail the above said evidence of P.W.1. 10. P.W.13 is Dr. Rajeswari says that both P.W.1 and A1 came to her and first accused told her that inspite of P.W.1 consuming oral contraceptive tablets, she conceived and that both of them requested her for abortion to avoid congenitally malformed baby. To that effect she issued Exhibit P-3 certificate dated 18.9.2003. She has mentioned therein that the abortion (MTB) took place in 2000 October. In the cross examination she would say both the spouses were living happily and with their consent alone she conducted operation. 11. P.W.14 Dr. Ramani Devi who would say in her certificate Exhibit P-4 that P.W.1 consumed insecticide and she treated her on 21.5.2003. She further stated that in 2000 September there was second conception and P.W.1 was advised to continue the pregnancy, that her husband was also counselled, that she came back after 3 months with severe pelvic infection and was treated by her (P.W.14), subsequently, she had inserted Copper-T, despite she conceived. Hence P.W.14 removed Copper-T and advised her to continue pregnancy and now she is under her care. In her cross examination she has stated that she did not make mention about the problem in her family. Her evidence would show that P.W.1 was treated by her since she consumed insecticide. This evidence supports the evidence of P.W.1 to some extent as regards the cause of her having consumed insecticide. 12. Exhibit D-15 is the conversation (reduced to writing) between P.W.1 and A1 over their mobile phones. Even though P.W.1 would admit certain portions of conversations, she would object to it by stating that main parts of conversation have been suppressed, which do not find place in Exhibit D-15. This Court is unable to place much reliance upon Exhibit D-15 since any conclusion taken on the basis of Exhibit D-15 could be a misleading one. 13. The above said observation is equally applicable to pornographic book M.O.2 and Blue Film CD M.O.1, since there is no proof that P.W.1 obtained them from appellant. The other documents produced by the appellant before the trial Court would have no force to disprove the case of P.W.1. 13. The above said observation is equally applicable to pornographic book M.O.2 and Blue Film CD M.O.1, since there is no proof that P.W.1 obtained them from appellant. The other documents produced by the appellant before the trial Court would have no force to disprove the case of P.W.1. They are prescriptions and they do not support the defence in any way. Exhibit D-12 is xerox copy of the undertaking given by P.W.2 with the Inspector of Police of All Women Police Station in which he has stated that when his daughter and A1 were living separately neither himself nor his wife would interfere. 14. This Court has scrutinised the evidence with due attention and analysed circumstances also. The oral testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 4 would indicate that she meted out cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband and there is no material available to throw her evidence on board nor to reject the same. The prosecution has proved the charge under Section 498(A) I.P.C against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. No valid ground is available nor materials are found in this case to dislodge the findings recorded by the trial Court against the appellant as regards conviction under Section 498(A) I.P.C. The appeal is devoid of merits. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant have to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. The point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The disposal of the case properties shall be in accordance with the trial Court direction. The Trial Court is directed to issue warrant to commit the accused to prison to suffer the remaining period of sentence. Appeal dismissed.