1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1275 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The respondent 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 were tried for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class vide judgment in CC No.75 of 1999 dated 29.08.2000. On appeal, the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Gadwal, reversed the finding of conviction and acquitted the respondents/accused vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2000 dated 25.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the wife of A1 and they were married on 01.02.1996. On 27.03.1999, P.W.1 went to the police station and filed complaint stating that she was being harassed by the respondents 1 to 3 for additional dowry. At the time of marriage, Rs.48,000/- for purchase of eight tulas of gold and net cash of Rs.24,000/- sister-in-law were given in addition to Rs.50,000/- to meet the marriage expenses. P.W.1 alleged that she was being continuously harassed physically and mentally by the 2 respondents and forcibly took an amount of Rs.50,000/-. When the respondents demand of additional dowry was not met, they beat P.W.1 and injured P.W.2-father. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
3. Learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of conviction and recorded acquittal of the respondents on the ground that there was no evidence apart from the evidence of P.W.1 that the respondents were harassing her. There was never any demand made by the respondents at any point of time directly with the parents of P.W.1. Admittedly, all the information even according to P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of P.W.1, information was provided by P.W.1.
4. The 1st respondent filed OP No.9 of 1998 against his wife P.W.1 seeking restitution of conjugal society. After the said petition was filed by the 1st respondent, the present complaint was filed. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of V.Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614] and also the judgment reported in the case of G.K.Devarajula Naidu v. State of A.P [2004 Crl.L.J 4571], where 3 under similar circumstances, criminal case was filed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against husband and family members, after the husband filed for restitution of conjugal society. The Supre Court quashed the charges.
5. In the background of the husband moving Family Court seeking direction to his wife P.W.1 to return to her marital life, pending such adjudication of the said application made by the husband, P.W.1 filed criminal complaint. Admittedly, all the allegations regarding harassment of additional dowry was at the instance of P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3, who are parents were never asked for any dowry directly by the respondents. In the said background of the case, the allegations of harassment remained uncorroborated and benefit of doubt has to be extended to the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused on the said basis.
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 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4 protections available to him in a criminal 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 with the well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Court to reverse the finding of acquittal of the accused.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1275 OF 2009 Dated: 28.09.2022 kvs