HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.875 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 1996 dated 20.03.2004 reversing the judgment of conviction by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in CC No.271 of 1993 dated 10.10.1996.
2. The respondent and 5 others were tried for the offences under Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC. However, the Magistrate found that the respondent/accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted accordingly, while acquitting others.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1 and the respondent was performed in the year 1985 and at the time of marriage, her father/P.W.2 gave Rs.50,000/- as dowry. After six months of marriage, the accused started abusing her both physically and mentally 2 and also insisted to get her pregnancy aborted. However, P.W.1 delivered a female child in the year 1986. Three months after delivery, P.W.1 joined the respondent. However, she was ill-treated continuously. When P.W.1 became pregnant in the year 1998, the respondent and her mother forcibly administered some tablets to abort her pregnancy. However, she went to her parents house and started living with her parents. Again in the 8th month of pregnancy, PW1 tried to stay with the respondent and mother-in-law. However, the respondent sent her away. Thereafter, on 25.03.1989, the respondent beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and she was treated at her parents house. On 21.01.1990, P.W.1 received a postal cover, which is Ex.P6 from the cousin brother of respondent stating that the respondent intended to marry another woman. For the said reason, P.W.1 filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.14 of 1990, which was allowed. However, on 08.05.1993, the respondent married second time, for which reason, complaint was filed and investigated.
4. The learned Magistrate found the respondent/A1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and acquitted the 3 other accused. However, the learned Sessions Judge on appeal found that; i) the Magistrate Court did not frame charge under Section 498-A of IPC and erred in convicting the respondent for the said offence; ii) Father-in-law of appellant admitted that he never witnessed any kind of harassment or ill-treatment by the respondent; iii) Though, it was claimed that P.W.1 was treated by Dr.Sunanda twice, she was not examined by the prosecution; iv) Legal notice was sent to the respondent to take back P.W.1. However, the respondent gave a reply notice, but the said copies of notices and reply notices were not filed by the prosecution;
v) Exs.P1 and P2 are letters allegedly written by the respondent coercing P.W.1 to agree for the second marriage. But the said letters were not proved to have been written by the respondent.
5. Learned Sessions Judge has found that the allegations of harassment was hearsay as stated by the father-P.W.2 and though P.W.1 claimed to have been treated by Dr.Sunanda, the said Doctor was not examined and the letters filed by the prosecution Exs.P1 and P2 alleged to have been written by the respondent were also not proved. 4 Though according to PW1 and 2, there were witnesses who have knowledge about harassment, however, said witnesses were not examined. The documents which are notice and reply between respondent and PW1 were not filed by the prosecution. For the said reason of non-production of available evidence , adverse inference has to be drawn. Though, it is not required to seek corroboration from independent witnesses to substantiate the offence of cruelty, however, in the present facts and circumstances when the witnesses specifically state about the documents being available and also the witnesses being present, the failure to examine such witnesses and bring the documents which are notices on record, would lead to inference that if the said witnesses and documents were produced, the said evidence would have gone against the prosecution case.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 5 trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
7. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.A.No.875 of 2009 Dated: 28.09.2022 kvs