The Kerala High Court has ruled that a delay in lodging a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court observed that a wife is not expected to “rush to the police station” at the first instance of cruelty, recognizing that victims often endure harassment in the hope of reconciliation and to safeguard the future of their children.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband, confirming his conviction and clarifying the legal position on “delayed complaints” and “independent witnesses” in matrimonial cruelty cases.
The “Delay” Argument
In the case of Tomon v. State of Kerala, the revision petitioner (husband) challenged his conviction primarily on the ground of delay. The defence pointed out that while the prosecution alleged cruelty began shortly after the marriage in 2003, the de facto complainant (wife) did not lodge a complaint until 2009.
The defence counsel argued that the wife continued to reside with the accused for six years without filing any complaint before the police or other authorities. They contended that this conduct cast “serious doubt” on the veracity of the prosecution’s case and indicated that the allegations of cruelty were false.
Court’s Observation: “Hope for Reformation”
Rejecting the defence’s contention, Justice Snehalatha held that the delay in approaching the police cannot be a ground to discard the victim’s case in matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that the judicial approach must account for the social realities of family life.
In a key observation regarding the conduct of victims, the Court stated:
“One cannot adopt a stand that whenever there is an act of cruelty by the husband, the victim wife should rush to the police station or any other authorities to lay a complaint. The victim wife may wait with a hope that things may change, especially to safeguard her children born in the said wedlock.”
The Court accepted the prosecution’s submission that the victim had endured the harassment for years to save her marriage, eventually filing a complaint only when the cruelty became unbearable in 2009.
Ruling on “Independent Witnesses”
The petitioner also argued that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to prove the alleged cruelty. The evidence relied upon was primarily the testimony of the wife (PW1) and her siblings (PW2 and PW3), whom the defence labeled as “interested witnesses.”
The High Court dismissed this argument as untenable, emphasizing the private nature of matrimonial offences. The Court noted that offences under Section 498A IPC are committed “within the privacy of matrimonial home” and “behind closed doors,” where independent witnesses are ordinarily not present.
The Court held:
“Expectations of independent evidence, therefore, ignore the social realities of domestic violence… The testimony of a married woman regarding the physical assault, she was subjected to on account of dowry demand carries significant evidentiary value if her version is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy.”
The Court affirmed that the law does not mandate “mathematical corroboration” or independent evidence as a prerequisite for establishing guilt under Section 498A IPC.
Decision
Finding the evidence of the wife and her siblings to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence (Wound Certificate), the High Court upheld the conviction. The Court ruled that the delay in 2009 was satisfactorily explained by the victim’s desire to protect her matrimonial life and children.
