Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 340 (AP)

Issa Venkateswarlu v. State of A. P.

2008-06-09

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2008
ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 19-01-2004 in Crl.A.No.29 of 2003, on the file of the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur, wherein the conviction of the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- on each count, as imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntakal, by judgment dated 18-02-2003 in C.C.No.494 of 2000, were confirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the records. 3. The revision petitioner/A-1, along with his mother/ A-2 and sister/A-3, was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.494 of 2000. P.W.1, the de facto complainant, is the wife of the revision petitioner/A-1 and based on her complaint-Ex.P-1, the F.I.R- Ex.P-2 was registered in Cr.No.63 of 2000. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner/A-1 and two others for the above said offences which were taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.494 of 2000. 4. According to the prosecution, the marriage of A-1 and P.W.1 was performed on 07-07-1999 and at the time of marriage P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1, spent Rs.1 lakh towards marriage expenses besides giving gold jewellery and 3 kgs of silver and also Rs.10,000/- to A-1 for his dress and that five months after marriage, the accused started demanding dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and harassing P.W.1 to bring the said amount from her parental house. It is further alleged that unable to bear the harassment, P.W.1 prevailed upon P.W.2 and with great difficulty P.W.2 could procure a sum of Rs.1 lakh and gave the same to A-1 in the presence of P.W.3, who is co-brother of A-1 and who arranged the marriage, and other elders including P.W.4, an Advocate and also one Nagaraju, who is also an Advocate and senior of P.W.4. It is the further case of prosecution that again after some months, the accused renewed their demand for additional dowry again demanding payment of Rs.2 lakhs and resumed the harassment and when P.W.1 pleaded her inability to fulfill the said demand, she was necked out of the house by A-1. It is the further case of prosecution that again after some months, the accused renewed their demand for additional dowry again demanding payment of Rs.2 lakhs and resumed the harassment and when P.W.1 pleaded her inability to fulfill the said demand, she was necked out of the house by A-1. It is further alleged that P.Ws.1 to 3 again approached the accused to settle the dispute through mediation in the presence of the elders, including P.W.4 and Nagaraju, who all advised A-1 to receive P.W.1 back, but the accused refused to allow P.W.1 to enter into their house, unless their demand was met. It is further alleged that the accused even warned P.W.1 that she would not remain alive if their demand for additional dowry was not met and, therefore, P.W.1 had to take shelter in the house of her brother/P.W.2 ever since, at Guntakal. Thereafter, she gave the complaint-Ex.P-1 to the police at Guntakal. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. The accused examined D.Ws.1 and 2 who are stated to be residents of the same village of A-1. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found A-2 and A-3 not guilty of the offences and acquitted them, but, however, convicted A-1 for the offences under Sections 498- A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- on each count. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 filed Crl.A.No.29 of 2003 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against A-1. Hence, the present revision. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 is that the accused are admittedly residents of Chowdepally village in Chittoor District and the alleged demand for additional dowry and the alleged harassment are said to have taken place at Chowdepally and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Guntakal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. He would further contend that even according to P.W.1, there was no physical harassment and, therefore, the conviction of A-1 based on vague allegation of mental harassment is not sustainable, especially when A-2 and A-3 were found not guilty and acquitted on the basis of the same evidence. 7. He would further contend that even according to P.W.1, there was no physical harassment and, therefore, the conviction of A-1 based on vague allegation of mental harassment is not sustainable, especially when A-2 and A-3 were found not guilty and acquitted on the basis of the same evidence. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the demand for additional dowry and subjecting P.W.1 to mental harassment coupled with physical act of necking her out of the house and refusal to take her back and further threatening P.W.1 with dire consequences over her life in the event of their demand not being fulfilled, cumulatively amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and P.W.1 having suffered mental harassment even at Guntakal while staying with her brother/P.W.2 on account of the unjustifiable conduct of A-1 over illegal demand, a part of cause of action certainly arose even at Guntakal and, therefore, the learned Magistrate at Guntakal had every jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. He would further contend that to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC it is always not necessary that there shall be physical acts of harassment amounting to cruelty and even mental harassment, with a view to coerce P.W.1 or her brother to meet the unlawful demand of A-1 for additional dowry, would constitute the offence. 8. The learned Magistrate has, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in view of the cogent and consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, recorded a finding that the revision petitioner/A-1 did, in fact, make demand for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and subjected P.W.1 to harassment over such demand and that with a view to settle the dispute P.W.1 paid Rs.1 lakh in the presence of PWs.3 and 4 and after keeping quiet for some time, A-1 resumed his demand and harassment again, seeking payment of Rs.2 lakhs. The evidence on record further establish that the mediation attempted by P.W.2 in the presence of PWs.3, 4 and others failed as A-1 was adamant and insisted upon payment of Rs.2 lakhs for taking back P.W.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 that P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony, is untenable. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 that P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony, is untenable. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 and he performed the marriage of P.W.1, their father not being alive and P.W.3 is the co-brother of A-1, who arranged the alliance. P.Ws.2 and 3 are, therefore, crucial witnesses to depose about the facts within their personal knowledge and hence most competent witnesses. In a matrimonial dispute like the present one, the hapless victim would naturally confide in her brother/P.W.2 and brother-in-law/P.W.3 and their intervention with a view to some how settle the dispute, is only natural. P.W.2 is the person who actually paid the amount of Rs.1 lakh in the presence of P.Ws.3, 4 and others. 9. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANOTHER, the Apex Court held as under: "The High Court has expressed doubts about the genuineness of the case of physical torture and abuses made by the husband and the deceased for the absence of any independent evidence given by the neighbours and co-tenants about such physical assault or the abuses hurled on the wife by the accused. We have indicated that ordinarily it is not expected that physical torture or the abuses hurled on the wife by the husband and the mother-in-law should be made in such a way as to be noticed by the tenants living in the adjoining portions of the house. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was physically assaulted so violently that the neighbours came to know about such assault. It is also not the case that abuses used to be hurled loudly so that the tenants had occasions to hear them. It was therefore not necessary to examine neighbours or tenants to prove the prosecution case. In the instant case, the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and other close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. In the instant case, the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and other close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. Whether the evidence of interested witness is worthy of credence is to be judged in the special facts of the case." Mere relationship of P.W.1 is, therefore, no ground to discard the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 and it cannot be branded as interested testimony. P.W.4, a practising Advocate, is an independent witness, who fully corroborated the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding payment of Rs.1 lakh by P.W.2 to A-1 in his presence and in the presence of his senior Sri Nagaraju and others. P.W.4's evidence further corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding failure of mediation when A-1 again demanded payment of Rs.2 lakhs for second time. P.W.4 categorically stated that himself and his senior Sri Nagaraju and other villagers of Chowdepally were present at the time of mediation and accused refused to receive P.W.1 unless the amount was paid as demanded and hence the panchayat failed. There is absolutely no reason to reject the testimony of P.W.1, who is a practising Advocate and an independent witness. Even the testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2, the villagers of Chowdepally, shows that P.W.4 and his senior were present at the time of mediation. An effort was made by the accused to show that the mediation was in connection with demand of P.W.2 to send P.W.1 with him over medical check up and not over any demand for dowry. It is highly improbable and hard to believe that there would have been any occasion for mediation by elders including two practising Advocates if the dispute was only regarding taking P.W.1 by P.W.2 for medical check up. It is highly improbable and hard to believe that there would have been any occasion for mediation by elders including two practising Advocates if the dispute was only regarding taking P.W.1 by P.W.2 for medical check up. The finding of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, that there was in fact a demand by A-1 for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and he persisted in that demand in spite of payment of Rs.1 lakh by P.W.2 and sending P.W.1 out of the house, warning her with dire consequences and refusing to take her back unless the demand is fulfilled, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and, therefore, does not call for any interference. 10. The question which then arises for consideration is whether there was any such harassment amounting to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, which reads as follows:- "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects 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." A plain reading of the above section would disclose that 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 on account of failure by her husband or any person related to her to meet such demand amounts to cruelty, which is punishable. The explanation defines the expression 'cruelty' and clause (a) pertains to willful 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) and clause (b) deals with harassment with a view to secure fulfillment of an unlawful demand or when such harassment is on account of failure to fulfill such demand. 11. In SHOBA RANI v. MADHUKAR REDDY, the Apex Court held that the demand of dowry by the husband or his parents amounts to cruelty. 12. 11. In SHOBA RANI v. MADHUKAR REDDY, the Apex Court held that the demand of dowry by the husband or his parents amounts to cruelty. 12. In the complaint-Ex.P-1 and also in her evidence, P.W.1 stated that A-1 threatened that if she made any attempt to enter his house, without fulfilling the demand for additional dowry, she would not remain alive and hence having no other go, she had to take shelter with her brother/P.W.2. P.W.2 also testified that A-1 threatened that if P.W.1 comes back without money, there was no guarantee to her life. Thus, there was a clear threat endangering her life in the event of P.W.1 returning to A-1's house empty handed. The said threat to the life of P.W.1 unleashed by A-1 clearly amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. That apart, the willful conduct of A-1 in demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and persisting with such demand even after the same was partially fulfilled by payment of Rs.1 lakh and his refusal to heed to the advice of elders to take back P.W.1 and insisting upon payment of Rs.2 lakhs before P.W.1 can be allowed to enter into his house, would certainly cause grave injury or danger to her health, mental if not physical which also amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Further, the above conduct of A-1 in his persistence to secure fulfillment of the unlawful demand for payment of dowry, would certainly constitute harassment and such harassment also amounts to cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. The proven acts and conduct of A-1 clearly attracts the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A IPC. The demand of A-1 for additional dowry and his acceptance of Rs.1 lakh towards the same and his further demand for payment of Rs.2 lakhs more as additional dowry, which aspects are all duly established by the evidence on record, clearly attract the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 over the question of jurisdiction, though A-1 and P.W.1 resided at Chowdepally in Chittoor district and P.W.1 was in fact necked out of house at Chowedpally, the mental harassment was suffered by P.W.1 wherever she was in view of the illegal conduct of A-1 over an unjustifiable demand. 13. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 over the question of jurisdiction, though A-1 and P.W.1 resided at Chowdepally in Chittoor district and P.W.1 was in fact necked out of house at Chowedpally, the mental harassment was suffered by P.W.1 wherever she was in view of the illegal conduct of A-1 over an unjustifiable demand. Simply because the physical act of sending her out of the house took place at Chowdepally in Chittoor District, it cannot be said that the Court at Guntakal had no jurisdiction inasmuch as P.W.1 suffered mental harassment at Guntakal. It is not for pleasure that P.W.1 has gone to the house of P.W.2 at Guntakal nor was it an occasional visit by a sister to her brother's house. P.W.1 had to take shelter in the house of her brother/P.W.2 at Guntakal only because of the unlawful conduct of A-1 in sending her out of the house and because P.W.1 had no alternative, it cannot, therefore, be said that while P.W.1 remained in the house of P.W.2 as a dependant and living on his charity, she was free from mental harassment. The conduct of A-1 in sending P.W.1 out of the house in view of her failure to bring additional dowry as demanded and further threatening her on her life in the event of her making any effort to come back empty handed and the plight of P.W.1 necessitating her to take shelter in her brother's house for her survival, would certainly result in her suffering mental harassment while at Guntakal. The harassment of P.W.1 and the willful conduct of A-1 in subjecting her to harassment over illegal or unlawful demand for additional dowry which demand and harassment persisted even while P.W.1 remained at Guntakal, would certainly confer jurisdiction on the learned Magistrate at Guntakal to take cognizance of the said offences. 14. In RAMESH VENKAT PERUMAL V. STATE OF A.P this Court held as follows: "If a married woman appears to stay at her parents' house in order to meet the illegal demands of her husband or relatives of her husband, naturally she suffers mental agony even during her stay at her parents' house and hence, it is a continuing offence and continues during her stay at her parents' house". 15. 15. In VALLURI RAMACHANDRA RAO & OTHERS V.STATE OF A.P., this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the above decision. 16. In BASHEER MOAZAM V. STATE OF A.P., this Court held as follows: "The three provisions, namely, Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C., indicate that in the case of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the case can be filed by the aggrieved wife/woman at a place where the demand was made for dowry or property thereby causing cruelty and also at a place where the woman was forced to live, that is to say, the consequence that ensued as a result of cruelty. To give an illustration, after marriage if the wife is subjected to cruelty by the husband or by his relatives at one place and due to such harassment, the wife is forced to go either to her parents place or a friend's place, there is nothing in law which prohibits the wife to initiate criminal action at a place where she is forced to live as a consequence of being subjected to cruelty." 17. In view of the decisions cited supra and in the light of the evidence on record in the present case establishing that P.W.1 was subjected to harassment even while she was at Guntakal in view of the unlawful demand for additional dowry by A-1 coupled with threat on her life, it is held that the learned Magistrate at Guntakal had every jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and try the accused for the same. 18. In the circumstances, the conviction of the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- on each count imposed by the Magistrate which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal, do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, as the impugned judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 19. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntakal shall issue necessary warrants against the revision petitioner/A-1 for serving the remaining part of sentence.