Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 594 (AP)

Kurapati Vimala Voctoria v. S. Kiran Sathya Raj

2023-03-17

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
ORDER: 1. A victim-cum-defacto-complainant filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set-aside the judgment dated 12.12.2008 of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala in C.C.No.09 of 2007 whereunder the accused/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted. 2. The revision petitioner was employed as physical education teacher. She got married to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was a teacher in Vijaya English Medium School. Respondent No.2 was District Audit Officer and he was elder brother of Respondent No.1. The marriage between revision petitioner and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 11.02.2004 according to Christian rites since they belonged to religion of Christianity. Alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, she lodged a complaint before learned Magistrate on 27.10.2006. That was forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, Cr.No.94/2006 was registered. After due investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Pakala Police Station filed charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and after securing the presence of A1 and A2, furnished them copies of documents. After due hearing and perusal of the record, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections.498-A, 323, 509 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the victim woman testified as Pw.1 and her brother testified as Pw.2 and her sister testified as Pw.3. Two neighbours to the matrimonial home testified as Pw.4 and Pw.5. The investigating officers testified as Pw.6 and Pw.7. The complaint that was lodged by victim is Ex.P1 and the F.I.R. issued in terms of it is Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. Certain parts of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements which were confronted to Pw.3 and Pw.4 when they were questioned in the nature of cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Savings Bank Account copy pertaining to Pw.2 is Ex.P6. A photostat copy of written complaint dated 17.10.2006 of Pw.1 was exhibited as D1 by the defence. The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the accused stated that it was all a false evidence. Savings Bank Account copy pertaining to Pw.2 is Ex.P6. A photostat copy of written complaint dated 17.10.2006 of Pw.1 was exhibited as D1 by the defence. The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the accused stated that it was all a false evidence. After hearing arguments on both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate by the impugned judgment found that there was no believable evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence on record was showing facts that were improbable in their nature and found various discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with reference to place where the alleged offence took place and the learned Magistrate further stated that the evidence concerning demand for dowry was bald and vague as it neither specifies the amount that was demanded nor it specified the dates on which such demands were made. With reference to physical cruelty as against Pw.1 and also her brother Pw.2, the learned Magistrate pointed out total absence of medical evidence. Considering the evidence on record and the probabilities, the learned Magistrate found both the accused not guilty and acquitted them on all the charges. It is that judgment of the learned Magistrate against which no appeal was preferred by the State. However, the victim-cum-defacto-complainant chose to prefer this revision and calls in question the correctness of the impugned judgment. In the memorandum of grounds of revision, it is stated that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is consistent and their evidence certainly proved the guilt of the accused and findings of the trial Court on all aspects is erroneous and is against facts on record and therefore the impugned judgment shall be set-aside. 3. Though this Criminal Revision Petition is filed way back in the year 2009 on most of the occasions there was no representation for revision petitioner. On 09.03.2023, 15.03.2023 and 16.03.2023 despite granting opportunities none represented the revision petitioner and no arguments were submitted. For Respondent No.3/the State, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments. 4. Section 403 Cr.P.C. provides that a revisional Court has got option to hear parties or their learned counsel. This Court has extended several opportunities to the revision petitioner to submit arguments but they did not materialize. In those circumstances, the questions raised in the revision are addressed now. 5. 4. Section 403 Cr.P.C. provides that a revisional Court has got option to hear parties or their learned counsel. This Court has extended several opportunities to the revision petitioner to submit arguments but they did not materialize. In those circumstances, the questions raised in the revision are addressed now. 5. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is limited as against the jurisdiction that is vested with a Court while considering an appeal. In this revision, the endeavour of the Court shall be confined to see whether the judgment impugned is in accordance with law and whether the findings suffer from any illegality or irregularity or impropriety. In a revision against acquittal a Court is incompetent to convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction as that is the mandate laid down in Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. It is in the context of these legal principles the question that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality or irregularity or impropriety requiring interference?” 6. POINT:- The grounds mentioned in the revision petition do not indicate any lapses in the trial procedure adopted by the trial Court. A reading of the impugned judgment also indicates that the trial was conducted in accordance with law. Thus, principles of fair trial are not at dispute. The Court which dealt with the criminal case and its legal competence to try such a case is also not at challenge. The entire challenge is with reference to the appreciation of evidence on the part of the learned trial Court. It is in that context, this Court has to scrutinize the record. 7. With reference to the prosecution allegations in proof of charges there is the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 who belong to same family. The two independent witnesses through whom the cruelty and dowry demand was sought to be proved by prosecution testified as Pws.4 and Pw.5 and they stated that they did not witness any violence or dowry demand on the part of the accused as against Pw.1 or her family members. Thus, two neutral and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Pw.6 and Pw.7 are the investigating officers and they are not witness to facts. Thus, two neutral and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Pw.6 and Pw.7 are the investigating officers and they are not witness to facts. During the course of their investigation except recording statements of witnesses they did not collect any material whatsoever which could prove the charge mentioned allegations. No material objects were seized and no incriminating material was found at the scene of offence. Thus, there is only the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 which was available before the learned trial Court in proof of the charges. 8. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 do indicate that the marital life between and A1 was happy for about six months and during their wed lock they were blessed with a son. Both the spouses are employed. For some time they lived at Pakala and thereafter the matrimonial home was shifted to place of employment of Pw.1/revision petitioner which was at Kavetigaripalle. While the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is to the effect that demanding additional dowry the accused used to beat Pw.1 and on 14.10.2006 they beat Pw.2 also and A2 using an iron rod inflicted injuries on Pw.2 which resulted in fractures to him. On considering this evidence the learned Magistrate recorded that the alleged crime weapon/iron rod was never seized and never exhibited, despite the allegation of causing fractures to Pw.2 there is absolutely no medical evidence brought on record and the witnesses did not even say where did Pw.2 obtain treatment for his injuries. Coming to the injuries on Pw.1 there was no evidence given by Pw.1 herself about the seat of injuries. Learned Magistrate further pointed out that this incident according to Ex.P1 complaint occurred at church and several people witnessed it. It observed that none from that church ever testified before the Court in proof of that allegation. The further finding of the learned Magistrate is that there is change in the scene of offence when the witnesses deposed at the Court. All the witnesses spoke that on 14.10.2006 the incident occurred at the house of Pw.1. The learned Magistrate found that this is against the earlier statement of Pw.1 contained in Ex.P1 wherein the scene of offence was mentioned as church. It was in those circumstances, this alleged cruel incident was found not proved by the learned Magistrate. 9. All the witnesses spoke that on 14.10.2006 the incident occurred at the house of Pw.1. The learned Magistrate found that this is against the earlier statement of Pw.1 contained in Ex.P1 wherein the scene of offence was mentioned as church. It was in those circumstances, this alleged cruel incident was found not proved by the learned Magistrate. 9. The averments in Ex.P1 and the evidence of Pw.1 was that the accused were harassing her to apply for loan from her General Provident Fund Account to a tune of Rs.5 Lakhs and pay to them. As she failed to do that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. With reference to this allegation the evidence on record was scrutinized by the learned Magistrate and he found that as per the admissions made by these witness during their cross examination by the year 2006 the total accumulations in the General Providence Fund Account of Pw.1 was between Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. Since the accused are also employed they have certainly got knowledge of this fact. It was in those circumstances, the learned Magistrate observed that when the funds were only less then Rs.15,000/-, obtaining a loan of Rs.5 Lakhs was never possible and therefore the very allegation was considered as improbable to have occurred. 10. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is to the effect that the accused were demanding additional dowry to set right the lives of their own sisters. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, the learned Magistrate observed that in the cross examination of Pw.1, she admitted that the sisters of her husband were financially very sound and they were well settled. It was in that context, the learned Magistrate said that, when the lives of sisters of accused did not indicate any need for money it was highly improbable to believe that accused demanded Pw.1 to get money for bettering the lives of sisters of accused. 11. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 was that accused demanded additional dowry. On verifying the evidence on record, this Court has not been able to see any pre-martial agreement among family members of this spouses for any dowry and failure to pay that dowry resulting in demand for such payment. 11. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 was that accused demanded additional dowry. On verifying the evidence on record, this Court has not been able to see any pre-martial agreement among family members of this spouses for any dowry and failure to pay that dowry resulting in demand for such payment. In-fact at more than one place the learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire evidence, recorded that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 has no indication about the dates of demand and the amount that was demanded. It was for all those reasons, he found no good in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 12. What is mentioned above would show that the entire evidence on record was considered by the learned trial Court and it was only on such consideration of material on record it arrived at its findings and its findings are clear and are supported by reason. It did not consider anything that was not part of the evidence. It did not fail to consider any evidence that was part of the record. Thus, the principles for appreciation of evidence found full compliance with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court. It is in these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no merit in this revision. Point is answered against the revision petitioner. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12.12.2008 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala in C.C.No.9 of 2007. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.