Annapureddy Purnima vs Annapureddy Pitchamma 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9780 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.843 OF 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the

petitioner namely Annapureddy Purnima, who was the de-facto

complainant (PW.1) in C.C. No.26 of 2008, on the file of the Court

of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala (for short, 'the learned

Magistrate'), wherein the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated

20.02.2009, found the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (A-1 to A-3),

not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and acquitted them under Section

235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the

Cr.P.C'). Challenging the same, she filed this Criminal Revision

Case.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Rentachintala Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.95 of

2007 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The case of the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

prosecution, before the Court below, as per the averments in the

charge sheet is as follows:

On 18.05.2003, the marriage of LW.1-Annapureddy

Purnima was performed with one Annapureddy Narasimha, who is

the son of A-1 and brother of A-2 and A-3. At the time of marriage,

A-1 was given Rs.80,000/-, 10 sovereigns of gold and other

household articles as dowry instead of Rs.1,20,000/- as agreed.

After the marriage, Narasimha and his wife Purnima shifted their

family to Hyderabad for business. A-1 to A-3 used to visit the

house of Narasimha and LW.1, and used to demand Narasimha to

part with certain properties and execute documents. Later, at

Hyderabad, Narasimha went missing. The de-facto complainant

could not trace the whereabouts of her husband and, after lodging

complaint at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, reached her matrimonial

house at Rentachintala. Then, A-1 to A-3 tortured her mentally

and physically and subjected her to cruelty by demanding balance

dowry of Rs.40,000/- as agreed by her parents. They also

pressurized her to sign on some blank papers. Hence, they are

liable for punishment. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate, Gurazala took cognizance of the

case against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

and, after completing necessary formalities, framed charge under

Section 498-A IPC and explained the same to them in Telugu for

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. After

closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were subjected

to 313 Cr.P.C. examination with reference to the incriminating

circumstances for which they denied the same and reported no

defence evidence.

6. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and

considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record,

found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A

IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant/PW.1 filed

the present Criminal Revision Case.

8. Before going to frame the point for consideration, this Court

would like to make it clear that, in view of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.,

while exercising the power of Revision, this Court cannot convert

an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The law is well

settled to the effect that it is only when the judgment of the trial

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

Court is perverse and judgment was delivered ignoring the

evidence on record, this Court has limited power of remanding the

matter to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh. So,

absolutely, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to show how

the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and as to whether the

judgment was delivered ignoring the evidence on record.

9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is, as to whether the prosecution before

the Court below proved the charge under Section 498-A IPC

against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether there

are any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal?

10. POINT: Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would contend that the trial Court erroneously recorded

an order of acquittal but the entire evidence adduced by the

prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and as

such the Court may pass appropriate orders.

11. Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos.1 to 3, would contend that the learned Magistrate

on over all consideration of the evidence on record and by

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

recording the sound reasons, recorded an order of acquittal, which

cannot be interfered with.

12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, submits that the Court may pass

appropriate orders.

13. PW.1 put the criminal law in motion in fact by filing a

private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it was

referred to Police for investigation. Accordingly, FIR was registered

and thereafter Police after investigation filed the charge sheet.

Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, her evidence is that, at the

time of marriage, her parents agreed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to

Narasimha towards dowry but they could give cash of Rs.80,000/-

only to A-1 and gave 10 sovereigns of gold etc., Later, she along

with her husband shifted to Hyderabad to do mats business. A-1

to A-3 used to visit their house at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and

used to insist her husband to give his share of joint family

property to A-1 to A-3. Later, on one day, her husband left the

house on business purpose and did not return. So, she filed a

report before Police, Kukatpally. Later, she went to her in-laws

house at Rentachintala, where A-1 to A-3 harassed her for balance

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

dowry amount. They also threatened her to put her signatures on

some blank papers otherwise they will do away her life.

14. As evident from the cross-examination part, she deposed

that she does not remember to prove that she approached Police to

file any report against A-1 to A-3 and as to whether she does not

remember whether she filed any report before Police about the

missing of her husband. It is to be noticed that according to the

evidence of PW.1, she did not attribute any bad motive against her

husband. Her husband was not an accused in this case. On the

other hand, accused are the kith and kin of her husband. It is not

the evidence of PW.1 that A-1 to A-3 subjected her to dowry

harassment when she and her husband resided at Kukatpally,

Hyderabad. So, her evidence that A-1 to A-3 used to visit their

residence at Kukatpally and used to demand her husband to give

his share of joint family property would not attract Section 498-A

IPC. So, the offence under Section 498-A IPC was alleged when

PW.1 was said to have joined with her in-laws at their village after

her husband was found missing. It is to be noticed that according

the evidence of PW.1, A-1 to A-3 demanded for the rest of dowry

amount after she joined with them. It is rather improbable to

assume that when the husband of PW.1, who was no other than

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

the son of A-1, was found missing and his whereabouts are not at

all traced, A-1 to A-3 would demand for balance dowry. Her

further evidence that they also demanded her to put her

signatures on blank papers is nothing but vague. Admittedly,

when her evidence is that when she along with her husband were

at Kukatpally, A-1 to A-3 used to harass her husband, it is not

understandable as to how she could join with her in-laws, after

her husband went missing. The evidence of PW.1 in this regard

cannot stand to the test of scrutiny.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, father of PW.1, he deposed

in support of the evidence of PW.1. As admitted by him in cross-

examination, he has no personal knowledge that accused

demanded the husband of PW.1 to sign on blank stamp papers to

get the share of the husband of PW.1. So, his evidence is hearsay

in nature. Even it is not his evidence that A-1 to A-3 demanded

him to pay rest of the dowry amount.

16. PW.3 claimed to be a mediator and, according to him, PW.2

called him to act as a mediator at the house of the accused and he

went to Rentachintala and he waited for ten minutes at the house

of the accused and later he left the village. His evidence is not

useful to the case of the prosecution in any way. According to his

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

cross-examination, he does not know that the dowry was paid to

the husband of PW.1. According to PW.3, though he deposed that

A-1 to A-3 used to harass PW.1 for remaining dowry but he

deposed that he does not know what happened at Hyderabad. He

was not a witness when A-1 to A-3 allegedly demanded PW.1 for

rest of the dowry. On the other hand, he was informed by PW.2

that accused harassed PW.1. So, his evidence is also hearsay in

nature. The evidence of PW.4 is also hearsay in nature as regards

the allegations against A-1 to A-3 having subjected PW.1 for dowry

harassment.

17. According to PW.5, he came to know that PW.1 was

subjected to harassment by A-1 to A-3 and they also harassed her

husband. Even according to him, he is not a witness to the

occurrence.

18. PW.6 did not support the case of the prosecution.

19. According to PW.7, PW.1 returned to Rentachintala due to

disputes between PW.1 and her husband and she stayed two or

three months with the accused and thereafter disputes arose

between them. Accused demanded PW.1 to put her signatures on

the blank papers. As pointed out, it was an improbable act on the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

part of PW.1 to join with her in-laws and even the evidence of

PW.7 is also vague.

20. PW.8 did not support the case of the prosecution.

21. PW.9 deposed that PW.1 left the house of A-1 on the ground

that A-1 to A-3 harassed her for balance dowry. He denied that he

is deposing false.

22 PW.10 is the Investigating Officer, who has spoken about

the investigation.

23. As evident from the evidence adduced by the prosecution,

the criminal law was put into motion by PW.1 by filing a private

complaint. Police, conducted investigation and later filed charge

sheet. The core allegation against A-1 to A-3 is that when PW.1

joined with them, after her husband found missing, they

demanded her for the rest of dowry amount. On the other hand,

there is also an allegation in the evidence of PW.1 that A-1 to A-3

used to demand her husband to part with his share in the joint

family property. When there were ill-feelings between the husband

of PW.1 with A-1 to A-3 on one hand and PW.1 with A-1 to A-3 on

the other hand and especially when the husband of PW.1 went

missing, it is rather improbable to assume that she would prefer to

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009

stay with A-1 to A-3 instead of her parents. The whole dispute

appears to be on account of the property dispute.

24. Having regard to the above, the learned Magistrate,

Gurazala rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded

an order of acquittal. Reasons furnished by the learned Magistrate

cannot be said to be perverse. It is not a case where the learned

Magistrate delivered the judgment without looking into the

evidence on record. On the other hand, he recorded due reasons to

record an order of acquittal. Hence, I see no ground to interfere

with the order of acquittal.

25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :21.12.2022 DSH