Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 471 (AP)

KONIDELA MADHUSUDHAN @ MADHU v. State Of A. P.

2003-03-24

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2003
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment rendered in crl. A No. 71 of 1999 by the learned IV additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 31-8-2000 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner being A1 by Trial Court i. e. , judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool in cc No. 227 of 1998 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC has been confirmed. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that A1 along with his parents who are A2 and A3 demanded PW1 the wife of A1 for additional dowry three months after the marriage of PW1 with A1 and they have harassed her by frequently scolding and beating her for getting dowry and the said torture has become unbearable. The petitioner-A1 also underwent second marriage at Mahanandeswara Temple at nandyal on 7-2-1998 with one Bharathi. Thereupon the lower Court framed charges under Sections 498-A against all accused and charge under Section 494 IPC against the accused No. 1 and tried the case and ultimately found A1 and other accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- while acquitting A1 of the offence under Section 494 IPC. Aggrieved by the same the matter has been carried in appeal to the IV Additional sessions Judge, Kurnool who in turn confirmed the conviction and sentence under section 498-A IPC against A. 1 in Crl. A no. 71799 and acquitted rest of the accused of the said offence. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is preferred by A1. ( 3 ) THE point that falls for consideration is whether there is any illegality in the order under appeal? ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contends that mere demand for additional dowry does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC and something more is required to be established and hence he has sought for setting aside the findings of the lower Court on the ground that it is not based on proper appreciation of evidence which led to miscarriage of justice. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that the lower court has rightly come to the conclusions. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that the lower court has rightly come to the conclusions. He has taken me through the evidence of pw1 who spoke to the alleged harassment etc. ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the same it is now well settled that normally revisional Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower Courts. The appellate Court has arrived at right conclusion after evaluating the evidence. It is also well settled law that the question of reappraisal of the evidence by the High court does not arise in revision cases. There are exceptions to the same. The exceptions are that the Court has to keep in mind while exercising the power of revision that it has to be exercised in rare cases only where miscarriage of justice has resulted. Many a case fall under the category of cases. It is not necessary to adumbrate all the category of cases. Suffice it to say the revisional jurisdiction is exercisable to rectify the illegality, irregularity, impropriety which must appear on the face of the record in the proceeding of any inferior Court. There cannot be any hard and fast rule for application of the revisional jurisdiction. The discretion has to be exercised only on sound judicial principles with a view to render substantial injustice. In the following cases the revisional jurisdiction can always be exercised. "the Court will interfere: (i) If the accused is not given reasonable opportunity to prove his case; (ii) If the evidence was shut out or the conclusion arrived at are based on no evidence, or there is no scope for the conclusions arrived; (iii) If there is any error of law on a point of law or no appraisal of evidence at all or no jurisdiction at all to try or where material evidence has been shut out or inadmissible evidence has been acted upon, or material evidence has been overlooked or there is another analogous defect in the judgment; (iv) If the conviction was recorded after an illegal order of remand; (v) When a case is transferred without notice to the opposite party; (vi) To correct an error in an order of compensation passed by a Magistrate. "the cases quoted by me are not exhaustive but illustrative. I have already stated there cannot be any hard and fast rule. "the cases quoted by me are not exhaustive but illustrative. I have already stated there cannot be any hard and fast rule. The Court has to keep in mind only to avoid miscarriage of justice and misapplication of law. ( 7 ) IN the light of the principles enunciated, I like to deal with the facts of the case. PW1 has stated in her evidence that her husband A1 assaulted her but the details of assault are not coming forth from her evidence either from the chief- examination or from the cross-examination. The actual amount of dowry that has been demanded is also not borne out on record. On the strength of the said evidence the lower Court has given a finding that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out. Section 498-A of IPC read as follows:"498-A: Husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjected her to cruelty : whoever being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjected such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation :for the purpose of this section, cruelty means: (a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. "it is clear from Section 498-A of IPC that if a woman is subjected to cruelty this provision is attracted. Cruelty has been defined under the Explanation to Section 498-A. Clause (b) of the Explanation shows harassment of woman for meeting unlawful demand. It is a case where the wife speaks about the demand of dowry and also about the assault. It cannot be said that the lower Court has given a finding without any reappraisal of the evidence. The appellate Court also considered the same, reappraised the evidence and gave a finding. This is a case where both the Courts have given concurrent findings regarding the question of fact. It cannot be said that the lower Court has given a finding without any reappraisal of the evidence. The appellate Court also considered the same, reappraised the evidence and gave a finding. This is a case where both the Courts have given concurrent findings regarding the question of fact. I do not find any illegality in appreciation or appraisal of evidence by both the Courts regarding 498-A IPC. Even otherwise there is sufficient material to show that the offence falls within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. ( 8 ) COMING to the aspect of sentence, there is demand for additional dowry and pw1 is said to have been assaulted in the hands of A1. The alleged harassment said to have been made by the parents-in-law of pw1 has been disbelieved and they are acquitted. It is not the case of the de facto complainant that she sustained some injuries due to harassment. May be it is a mental harassment. Moreover the same is not complained immediately. Harassment may be of such a nature which she felt that she did not complaint. Taking into consideration of the same, I am of the considered view that confirming the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by petitioner-A1 and also confirming the sentence of fine awarded will meet the ends of justice in this case. In that view of the matter, the order of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC against A1 is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment is restricted to the period already undergone by A1. ( 9 ) IN the result the criminal revision case is dismissed confirming the conviction of petitioner-A1 for the offence under section 498-A IPC but restricting the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him while confirming the sentence of fine imposed against him.