Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 672 (AP)

Majji Parvathamma v. Majji Vasantha Rao

2023-04-04

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto-complainant pertaining to C.C. No. 11 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2006, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short) where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the first respondent/A.1 in the above said Calendar Case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (“D.P. Act” for short) as such acquitted him of the charges. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the Court below according to the charge sheet filed, is that the marriage in between Majji Parvathamma (PW-1) and A.1 took place on 19.03.2001 in Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple at Arasavalli as per their caste customs and Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, parents of PW-1 gave cash of Rs.10,000/- a gold ring weighing half tula, bridal articles worth of Rs.40,000/- to the accused apart from land in an extent of Ac.1-20 cents and five tulas of gold to PW-1. PW-1 and A.1 lead their conjugal life peacefully and happily for one year. During their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter. One year thereafter, at the instigation and connivance of A.2 to A.6, A.1 demanded PW-1 for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The parents of PW-1 expressed their inability to do so. Hence, all the accused bore grudge against PW-1 and started harassing and ill-treating her by abusing and beating her daily. They did not provide any food for her and milk to her daughter. Therefore, on 22.12.2001 PW-1 presented a report in Palakonda Police Station against all the accused. The above said report was enquired in Family Counseling Center, Palakonda. During the enquiry, all the accused gave an undertaking to look after PW-1 and her daughter properly in future and took PW-1 and her daughter to their house at Kondapuram village. After one month, all the accused again started harassing and ill-treating PW-1 with demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. During the enquiry, all the accused gave an undertaking to look after PW-1 and her daughter properly in future and took PW-1 and her daughter to their house at Kondapuram village. After one month, all the accused again started harassing and ill-treating PW-1 with demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. When the parents of PW-1 expressed their inability, all the accused beat PW-1 with hands indiscriminately all over the body and necked out her. Hence, the charge-sheet. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, took cognizance on file under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against all the accused. After compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. the accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and they denied the allegations and then the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt against the accused, examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3. After the evidence of prosecution was closed, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence and reported no defence evidence. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found A.2 to A.6 not guilty of the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate found A.1 guilty of the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and convicted him under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. After questioning A.1 about the quantum of sentence, the Court below sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Felt aggrieved of the same, A.1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A.1. Felt aggrieved of the above judgment in Criminal Appeal, the defacto-complainant in C.C. No. 11 of 2002 filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2006, dated 23.09.2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point: 8. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wound contend that the testimony of PW-1 has corroboration from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 father of PW-1, PW-3 mother of PW-1 and PW-4 brother of PW-1. The prosecution further examined PW-5, the investigating officer and PW-6, the Sub Inspector of Police, who filed the charge sheet. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully convincing. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palaknoda, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and extended benefit of doubt to A.2 to A.6, but with reasons convicted A.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with erroneous reasons set aside the conviction. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 is corroborative with each other. Even A.1 administered poisonous pills to get abortion of second issue of PW-1 when PW-1 was residing along with A.1 in Military quarters. PW-1 was necked out from the matrimonial house by A.1 ultimately. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with erroneous reasons, set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/A.1, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, would contend that the allegations of the prosecution consist of two stages. One is that upon the report lodged by PW-1 in December, 2001. Family Counseling Center convened and set-right the issue and after that A.1 took away PW-1 to reside along with him. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/A.1, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, would contend that the allegations of the prosecution consist of two stages. One is that upon the report lodged by PW-1 in December, 2001. Family Counseling Center convened and set-right the issue and after that A.1 took away PW-1 to reside along with him. The second stage is that it was alleged that A.1 demanded PW-1 to bring dowry and necked out her when they were working at his employment place. Without proving the second stage of events, prosecution should not rely upon the first phase of incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into these issues and with cogent reasons, reversed the conviction and sentence imposed against A.1, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits. 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that he is leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court. 11. As seen from Ex.P.1, which is a report lodged by the defacto-complainant (PW-1), it consists of bundle of allegations. It alleges that on 19.03.2000 the marriage of defacto-complainant with A.1 took place and land, gold and cash were given towards dowry or Lanchanams and further household articles worth of Rs.40,000/- was also given. For one year the couple resided happily. After one year, she gave birth to a female child. Later, at the instigation of A.2 to A.6, A.1 started harassing her. So, ultimately alleging certain things, she lodged a report on 22.12.2001. It further alleges that on her report, Family Counseling Center intervened and resolved the issue and then A.1 took PW-1 into his fold. Further allegation is that on 01.02.2002 again she was subjected to demand of dowry and she was beaten and she was necked out. Hence, basing on the events said to be happened on 01.02.2002, she lodged a report to the police. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution had two phases. One is about the allegations prior to the earlier report, dated 22.12.2001 and another is subsequent to 22.12.2001. 12. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto-complainant, her evidence in substance is that her marriage with A.1 took place on 19.03.2000. Land of Ac.1-20 cents, five tulas of gold, Rs.10,000/- half tula of gold ring were presented to A.1. Sare Samans worth of Rs.40,000/- given to A.1. 12. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto-complainant, her evidence in substance is that her marriage with A.1 took place on 19.03.2000. Land of Ac.1-20 cents, five tulas of gold, Rs.10,000/- half tula of gold ring were presented to A.1. Sare Samans worth of Rs.40,000/- given to A.1. They lead marital life happily for about one year. Out of their wedlock, she begot one female child. All the accused used to demand her to bring Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry from her parents and used to harass her. Her parents expressed their inability to do so. Then, all the accused dragged her from out of their house and drove her out. Then they raised dispute before the village elders. They gave report to the Family Counseling Center, Palaknoda in order to settle the issue. The Family Counseling Center, Palakonda called the parties and pacified the issue and directed them to lead conjugal life. She joined with A.1 and lead conjugal life at Jammu & Kashmir where A.1 was working in a quarter. For a period of two or three months, A.1 looked after her well. Thereafter, on receipt of phone calls from the rest of the accused, A.1 harassed her and beaten her indiscriminately. During that period, she conceived through A.1. A.1 used to give pills and tablets for abortion of second issue. A.1 brought her to her parents’ house and left her in the house and stated that she may report to whomsoever concerned and so saying he left the house. Then, she lodged a report to the police. 13. The evidence of PW-2 to PW-4, parents and younger brother of PW-1 is almost similar as that of the evidence of PW-1. 14. It is no doubt true that the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, having given specific findings that the prosecution failed to prove the demands made by A.2 to A.6, extended an order of acquittal in favour of them, but convicted A.1. When A.1 filed the Criminal Appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of conviction. 15. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the findings made by the Additional Sessions Judge that prosecution failed to prove the case against A.1 suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 16. The learned Additional Sessions Judge divided the allegations in the case of the prosecution into two parts. 15. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the findings made by the Additional Sessions Judge that prosecution failed to prove the case against A.1 suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 16. The learned Additional Sessions Judge divided the allegations in the case of the prosecution into two parts. One is prior to the report, dated 22.12.2001 and second part is relating to the events happened at Jammu & Kashmir after the Family Counseling Center resolved the issue between A.1 and PW-1. 17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that as on account of the counseling made by the Family Counseling Center, both A.1 and PW-1 resided together, the bundle of allegations prior to 22.12.2001 cannot be considered to give findings against A.1. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge looking into the second part of the allegations, found the A.1 not guilty. Here in limited extent, this Court would like to differ with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Though the case of the prosecution consists of two parts i.e. allegations prior to 22.12.2001 and the allegations subsequent thereof, but the thing is that on account of initiation taken by the Family Counseling Center, the parties decided to bury the disputes and to lead happy marital life. In that view of the matter, when the case of the prosecution is that A.1 subsequent to the said resolving of the disputes, again subjected PW-1 to cruelty, definitely, even the first part of the allegations can be looked into, if the second part of the allegations are proved to be true. In other words, this Court cannot simply exclude the first part of the allegations from consideration. But, the prosecution has to prove the so-called cruel attitude shown by A.1 towards PW-1 subsequent to 22.12.2001. If the prosecution is able to prove all those allegations, definitely, it can also rely upon the events prior to 22.12.2001. Keeping in view the evidence is to be appreciated. 18. As seen from Ex.P.1, the crucial allegation is that when PW-1 and A.1 started residing together on 01.02.2002, all the accused beaten her and sent her out with a demand to bring additional dowry. Keeping in view the evidence is to be appreciated. 18. As seen from Ex.P.1, the crucial allegation is that when PW-1 and A.1 started residing together on 01.02.2002, all the accused beaten her and sent her out with a demand to bring additional dowry. Now, when it comes to the evidence of PW-1, she spoken the events prior to 22.12.2001 and her evidence subsequent to her joining with A.1 is that when she and A.1 lead conjugal life at Jammu & Kashmir, A.1 looked after her well and on receipt of phone calls from rest of the accused, he harassed and beat her indiscriminately and when she conceived pregnancy, he administered pills so as to terminate the pregnancy and thereafter, brought her to her parents’ house and left her in the house, as such, she gave a report. Admittedly, the evidence of PW-1 that A.1 administered pills to her so as to terminate the second pregnancy is without any basis and it is an improvement for the first time before the Court below. So that allegation cannot be considered. The next allegation is that A.1 used to harass and beat her indiscriminately all over the body and later took her to her parents’ house and left her stating that she may do whatever she would like to say. The narration of the evidence as above by PW-1 never disclosed that at Jammu & Kashmir, A.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry. Admittedly, PW-2 to PW-4 were not witnesses to the so-called events that took place at Jammu & Kashmir. As seen from Ex.P.1, there is no whisper that A.1 administered pills to PW-1 so as to terminate her pregnancy. It alleges as if all the accused driven her out in the evening of 01.02.2002 at 6-00 p.m. PW-1 did not whisper literally that on that day she was driven her out by all the accused. 19. Apart from the above, according to PW-2 with regard to the events that took place after PW-1 and A.1 were stated to have resolved their disputes, his evidence is that A.1 took away PW-1 to Jammu & Kashmir to lead conjugal life and lead marital life for three months and he used to harass and beat PW-1 and used to administer pills. Even he was not a witness to the events at Jammu & Kashmir. Even he was not a witness to the events at Jammu & Kashmir. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4. There is no whisper from PW-1 as to how she would keep quiet at Jammu & Kashmir when A.1 allegedly beat her. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution with regard to the events that took place at Jammu & Kashmir. So, the allegations in the second part were not proved by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution cannot rely upon the first part i.e. incident prior to 22.12.2001 without proving the allegations subsequent to 22.12.2001 because both PW-1 and A.1 buried their differences and resided together at Jammu & Kashmir. 20. In my considered view, absolutely, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all convincing. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into the broad spectrum of the prosecution case and divided the allegations into two parts, one is prior to 22.12.2001 and another is after 22.12.2001 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not found bonafidies in the case of the prosecution and rightly set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal, irregular and improper. 21. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. 22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.