Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
CRLRC/1447/2007 on 15 February, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.1447 OF 2007
ORDER:-
Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam,
dated 17-07-2007 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2005, Pw.1-defacto
complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The marriage of the petitioner was performed with Accused
No.1 on 11-06-2003. It is stated by Pws.1 and 2 that an amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid at the time of marriage apart from the
other articles. It is alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner
joined the matrimonial home. It is stated by the petitioner as
well as her mother in their evidence that from the next day of
the marriage, all the accused i.e., Accused Nos.1 to 5 used to
harass Pw.1 demanding additional dowry. Thereafter, on a report
given by Pw.1, a case in Cr.No.83 of 2003 under Section 498-A
of IPC was registered and charge sheet was filed. The case was
taken on file as CC.No.866 of 2003 on the file of the Court of I
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
3. During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 7 were examined and
marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
4. After full-fledged trial, while acquitting Accused Nos.2 to 5,
the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam, convicted Accused No.1/petitioner for the
2
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced
him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six(6) months
and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence passed by
the trial judge, Accused No.1/petitioner has preferred
Crl.A.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the court of Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. After an elaborate discussion, the
appellate judge while allowing the Appeal, held in paras 14 to 17
of his Judgment, as under:-
"14. Then the remaining evidence in the record is the
evidence of PW.2 who is mother of Pw.1 and corroborated with
the evidence of Pw.1. Her evidence is not also convincing and
believable almost it is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1
with regard to the payment of dowry and demand of additional
dowry etc., She is an interested witness, in such case the
evidence is to be strictly scrutinized.
15. In the cross-examination Pw.1 admitted after
marriage she lived with the accused only for 11 days.
Thereafter, she left to her parents house due to Ashada masam
and again after joining A-1 they put up separate family and
there she lived only for 4 days. Thereafter even as per her
evidence she reported the matter to the Kancharapalem Police.
On their advice their family was shifted to Gnanapuram. Within
few days again she left to her parents house.
16. As seen from her evidence itself she lived with A1
not more than 20 days after marriage. She further stated that
the next day after her joining A1 they used to harass her to get
additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the said evidence is not
convincing and it is not believable that on the next date of
marriage itself the accused used to harass her. The trial court
rightly not believed the evidence of Pw.1 that A2 to A5 harassed
her. The trial court also ought to have believed with the
3
evidence of PW1 that she was harassed on the next day by the
accused including A1.
17. As seen from the evidence of PW1 herself, 10 days
after she left the house of A1. He got issued a notice to join
him for marital life. But she did not gave any reply immediately,
she got issued reply on 14-10-2003 after a long time. She
herself admitted that 1 year 5 months later after her joining to
her parents she reported the matter to the police. If really she
was harassed by the accused for additional dowry, definitely she
would have reported the matter to the police immediately when
left the house of A1, but not 1 ½ year after the incident.
Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not convincing and
believable that the accused harassed PW1 for additional dowry.
In any way, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not convincing and
believable, the conviction of accused by the trial court basing on
such evidence is liable to be set aside."
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the appellate
judge in allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment
passed by the trial judge, the defacto complainanant-Pw.1 filed
the present Criminal Revision Case.
7. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the learned judge erred in holding that the independent
witnesses were not examined in the case of this nature as the
offence has taken place within the four walls, as such the
question of independent witnesses seeing the incident does not
arise. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned appellate judge should have seen that
4
even if the evidence of Pw.3 is discarded from consideration, still
the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is sufficient to convict the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. As seen from the evidence on record, the defacto
complainant lived with the petitioner/Accused No.1 for about 20
days. However, it is to be noted that except the evidence of
PW.1 and her mother-PW.2, all the independent witnesses did
not support the case of the prosecution. Further, the entire
evidence of PWs.1 and 2 did not inspire confidence of this court
to convict the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
Taking into consideration of all the above facts and
circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of acquittal passed by the appellate judge. Hence, there
are no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
__________________
K.SURESH REDDY,J
15-02-2022
.
TSNR
