Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 407 (AP)

Anumaladasu Venkat Rao v. State

2005-04-25

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2005
G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision case is preferred by accused No. 1 in C. C. No. 85 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional magistrate of First Class, Eluru. ( 2 ) THE petitioner and 11 others were charged for the offence under Section 498-A ipc. They pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the petitioner and others relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and Ex. P. 1-complaint given by P. W. 1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution found A. 1, the petitioner herein, guilty for the offence under Section 498-A ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court acquitted A. 2 to A. 12 from the charge under Section 498-A IPC. ( 3 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate preferred Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on 15-1-2002 confirming the conviction, but modified the sentence imposed by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for one year, but did not disturb the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the Courts below preferred this revision case challenging their validity and legality. ( 4 ) THE story of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the petitioner is briefly as follows: ( 5 ) P. W. I is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage took place in 21-10-1988. At the time of marriage the parents of P. W. I gave Rs. 25,000/- to A. 1 towards Sthreedhana in the presence of mediators. They also gave Rs. 2,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams and Rs. 2,000/- to A. 1 for purchase of clothes. The family of the petitioner presented 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments to P. W. I. They lived happily for about two years, but P. W. I did not beget children. Later the accused used to harass P. W. I demanding to bring additional dowry in the form of scooter and gold chain. 2,000/- to A. 1 for purchase of clothes. The family of the petitioner presented 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments to P. W. I. They lived happily for about two years, but P. W. I did not beget children. Later the accused used to harass P. W. I demanding to bring additional dowry in the form of scooter and gold chain. In 1991 P. W. I was sent out on a vinayakachavithi day asking to bring scooter and gold chain from her parents. Subsequently all the accused tortured P. W. 1 for not meeting their demand, abused and bet her. Subsequently A. 1 married A. 10 at the instigation of other accused. A. 1 and a. 10 were blessed with a son. A. 10 and her child are staying in the house of A. 2 and a. 3. On 30-3-1993 P. W. I issued a legal notice mentioning that the petitioner deserted her. In February 1993 the petitioner told p. W. I that he took a separate rented house and they can live separately from the other members of the family. Accordingly P. W. 1 joined him on 11-2-1993, but the petitioner continued the harassment. P. W. 1 filed Ex. P. 1- complaint before the concerned police alleging that the petitioner and other accused harassed her. The police registered the crime under Sections 498-A and 494 ipc and investigated the case. The Trial court after considering the contents of the charge-sheet discharged the accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC and framed the charge for the offence under section 498-A IPC. ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other accused harassed P. W. 1 demanding to bring motorcycle and gold chain from her parents. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are attracted. The petitioner and other accused made a general denial and it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since there is no specific allegation of harassment made by P. W. I, the petitioner is not liable for any punishment, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. ( 7 ) IN view of the contentions raised by the parties, the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and whether he is entitled for acquittal? ( 7 ) IN view of the contentions raised by the parties, the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and whether he is entitled for acquittal? point: ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no consistency in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, that the evidence of P. W. 2 is contrary to the evidence of P. W. I, that the demand of additional dowry in the form of motorcycle and gold chain was alleged against all the accused, therefore, the Court cannot distinguish the petitioner from other accused and he alone cannot be convicted for the said offence. He further submitted that whatever benefit was given to other accused should also be extended to the petitioner. The learned Counsel in support of his contention also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in penchala Sadaiah v. State of A. P. , 2003 (2) ald (Crl.) 332 = 2003 (3) LS 26 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that to attract Section 498-A IPC "cruelty" must be of such nature so as to coerce wife to meet illegal demands or to commit suicide. There must be a nexus between cruelty and suicide. Except the prosecution witnesses stating that the accused demanded additional dowry, there is no other evidence that the accused harassed the deceased for not bringing additional dowry. The lower Court erred in drawing presumption under Section 113-A of the evidence Act. Since the presumption under section 113-A can be invoked only when the prosecution discharged its initial burden of proof that the accused subjected the wife to cruelty, the conviction of the accused under Section 498-A IPC is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) IN the light of the principle laid down by this Court, it may be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this case. ( 10 ) P. W. 1, the wife of the petitioner stated that after the marriage she joined him and after two years A. 2 to A. 10 harassed her for bringing more dowry from her parents. The petitioner also demanded to get a scooter and a gold chain. For Sankranthi festival, 1990 her parents called the petitioner and herself to their house. The petitioner also demanded to get a scooter and a gold chain. For Sankranthi festival, 1990 her parents called the petitioner and herself to their house. At that time the petitioner demanded them to present a scooter and a gold chain to him and he refused to visit the house of her parents unless the demands are met. When her parents expressed their inability to meet the demands, the petitioner bet her and she bore the entire harassment with a hope that the accused may change their attitude. In 1990 the petitioner threatened that he would marry another woman. For Vinayakachavithi festival, 1990 A. 4 to A. 10 visited the house of A. 1 to A. 3 and all of them necked her out demanding to bring the scooter and the gold chain. As she was not having any alternative, she went to her parent s house. The efforts made by the mediators also failed and all the accused declared that they would perform another marriage to the petitioner. On 30-3-1992 P. W. 1 got issued a legal notice calling upon A. 1 to take her to his house for conjugal life and he gave a reply with false allegations. When she was thinking of giving a report to the police, the elders intervened and at their instance the petitioner promised to take her back to their house after construction of the house by representing that his parents are not willing to bring her back to his house. On 11-2-1993 the petitioner came to her parents house and took her to his house. She further deposed that the petitioner set up a separate family in a hut in the premises of the house of his parents. During that period she underwent several troubles, but continued her conjugal life. During that period also the accused put her to mental and physical harassment by demanding more dowry. ( 11 ) P. W. 2, the father of P. W. I and a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway protection Force, Vijayawada deposed that he gave dowry at the time of marriage and sent P. W. 1 to the house of the petitioner. But the petitioner tried to kill P. W. 1 on four occasions. He further stated that the accused demanded additional dowry and bet p. W. 1 leading to abortion. But the petitioner tried to kill P. W. 1 on four occasions. He further stated that the accused demanded additional dowry and bet p. W. 1 leading to abortion. P. W. 2 further stated that on two or three occasions he took elders to the house of the petitioner and in the presence of mediators, the petitioner demanded to give a scooter, a gold chain and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. When he expressed his inability to meet the demand, the accused used to harass P. W. 1. ( 12 ) THE evidence of these witnesses clearly indicates that the petitioner demanded scooter and gold chain and bet her before vinayakachavithi of 1990. The petitioner also threatened that he would marry another woman if P. W. 1 fails to get scooter and gold chain from her parents. Though P. Ws. 1 and 2 asserted that the petitioner married a. 10 at the instigation of A. 11 and A. 12 and a. 10 was blessed with a son, their evidence is very specific that the petitioner went to the house of P. W. 2 for Vinayakachavithi festival and informed them that he will not come to their house unless his demand for scooter and gold chain are fulfilled. Though the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 was to the effect that the petitioner started leading marital life with A. 10 under one room and gave birth to a child, the lower Court referred to the specific instances of harassment by the petitioner and accordingly concluded that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is proved against the petitioner. The Appellate court also gave similar finding by modifying only the sentence of imprisonment. Though there are only omnibus allegations against a. 2 to A. 12, there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the harassment. The Appellate Court was also right in coming to a conclusion that the offence against the petitioner has been proved. After carefully going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am convinced that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly concluded that there were specific allegations of harassment against the petitioner and there were only omnibus allegations against the other accused. The Trial Court rightly found A. 2 to A. 12 not guilty of the charge. ( 13 ) THE High Court has to exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr. The Trial Court rightly found A. 2 to A. 12 not guilty of the charge. ( 13 ) THE High Court has to exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr. P. C. only in exceptional cases where interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In the case on hand, there is no manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot ordinarily be invoked merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record. After going through the grounds of revision, I do not find any compelling circumstances to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. ( 14 ) IN the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.