Telangana High Court
T.Vijaya Kumari vs The State Of A.P. Rep.By P.P. And Another on 12 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 OF 2009
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 12.01.2009 in S.C.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Ms. S. Madhavi, learned counsel representing Mr. Laxman Batchu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 married each other. It is stated that the petitioner was 'mala' by caste and respondent No.2 was 'ayyavarlu'. After marriage, respondent No.2 harassed the petitioner for want of additional dowry. But the petitioner could not get the same. The petitioner submitted that she underwent abortions on two occasions due to the acts of respondent No.2 but he failed to take care of her. He developed illicit intimacy with another woman and neglecter her. When the petitioner 2 questioned him about the same, respondent No.2 beat her and abused her in the name of her caste.
4. Unable to bear such harassment the petitioner filed a complaint before the then Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad took cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found respondent No.2 not guilty of the alleged offences and acquitted him. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1, P2, P4 to P7 in proper perspective and erroneously acquitted respondent No.2 for the alleged offences vide impugned judgment and he seeks to set aside the same.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court after careful scrutiny of the material on record rightly passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision. 3
7. The trial Court on behalf of prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 and 2. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D4 were examined and no document was marked. On careful consideration of the material on record, the trial Court observed that PW1 neither filed the medical reports pertaining to her second pregnancy and abortion in the Court nor gave them to the police. This shows that there was inconsistency in the statement of PW1 with regard to the second pregnancy.
8. The trial Court further observed that there were inconsistencies in the statements of PWs.1, 2 and 6 and MO2 and the same does not establish that the accused had illicit intimacy with another woman. In the present case it was found that the alleged demand for money was not made prior to the marriage but four months after the alleged marriage. It is an undisputed fact that PW1 or her parents or brother did not pay any money to the accused towards dowry at the time of marriage. So, respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for the offences alleged under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. The trial Court, by following the ratio laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A. Nagamani Vs. 4 Government of A.P. & Others 1 held that PW1 after her marriage with her husband acquired 'Ayyavarlu' caste. So, the petitioner cannot claim that she belonged to scheduled caste by the date of the alleged offence. In E. Tirupen Reddy Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal, Kurnool District and others 2, the Hon'ble High Court held that the offence alleged under SC, ST (POA) Act must take place at public place and in public view. Even if it is assumed that respondent No.2 abused PW1 in the name of her caste, it took place only in his house but not in a public place. But in the cross examination PW1 herself admitted that in Ex D1 complaint she failed to state that respondent No.2 abused her in the name of caste. Thus, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that respondent No.2 insulted PW1 by abusing her in the name of her caste.
10. In the present case on hand, the trial Court found that there were serious omissions and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. During investigation, no medical record pertaining to the abortions undergone by PW1 was collected. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of 1 LC 2008 (9) AP 580 2 2006 (2) ALT 366 (DB) 5 respondent No.2 for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted him, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
11. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date:12.02.2024 ESP