Majji Parvathamma vs Majji Vasantha Rao Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1815 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1885 OF 2008

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto-

complainant pertaining to C.C.No.11 of 2002, on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, challenging the

judgment in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2006, on the file of II

Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge   (Fast   Track   Court),

Srikakulam ("Additional Sessions Judge" for short), where under

the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction

and sentence imposed against the first respondent/A.1 in the

above said Calendar Case under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act ("D.P. Act" for short), as such acquitted him of

the charges.

2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for

the sake of the convenience.

3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the

Court below according to the charge sheet filed, is that the

marriage in between Majji Parvathamma (P.W.1) and A.1 took

place on 19.03.2001 in Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple at

Arasavalli as per their caste customs and Hindu rites. At the

time of marriage, parents of P.W.1 gave cash of Rs.10,000/-, a

gold ring weighing half tula, bridal articles worth of Rs.40,000/-

to the accused apart from land in an extent of Ac.1-20 cents and

five tulas of gold to P.W.1. P.W.1 and A.1 lead their conjugal life

peacefully and happily for one year. During their wedlock they

were blessed with a daughter. One year thereafter, at the

instigation and connivance of A.2 to A.6, A.1 demanded P.W.1

for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The parents of P.W.1

expressed their inability to do so. Hence, all the accused bore

grudge against P.W.1 and started harassing and ill-treating her

by abusing and beating her daily. They did not provide any food

for her and milk to her daughter. Therefore, on 22.12.2001

P.W.1 presented a report in Palakonda Police Station against all

the accused. The above said report was enquired in Family

Counseling Center, Palakonda. During the enquiry, all the

accused gave an undertaking to look after P.W.1 and her

daughter properly in future and took P.W.1 and her daughter to

their house at Kondapuram village. After one month, all the

accused again started harassing and ill-treating P.W.1 with

demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. When

the parents of P.W.1 expressed their inability, all the accused

beat P.W.1 with hands indiscriminately all over the body and

necked out her. Hence, the charge sheet.

4) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palakonda, took cognizance on file under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against all the accused. After

compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C. and they denied the allegations and then the charges

under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act,

were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt

against the accused, examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to P.3. After the evidence of prosecution was closed,

accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for which

they denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence and

reported no defence evidence.

6) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palakonda, on hearing both sides and on considering the

evidence on record, found A.2 to A.6 not guilty of the charges

under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and

acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned

Magistrate found A.1 guilty of the charges under Section 498-A

of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and convicted him under

Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. After questioning A.1 about the

quantum of sentence, the Court below sentenced him to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month each for the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and

Section 4 of the D.P. Act and that both the sentences shall run

concurrently. Felt aggrieved of the same, A.1 filed Criminal

Appeal No.27 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam and the learned

Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal setting

aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A.1. Felt

aggrieved of the above judgment in Criminal Appeal, the

defacto-complainant in C.C.No.11 of 2002 filed the present

Criminal Revision Case.

7) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case,

the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment

of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), Srikakulam, in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2006,

dated 23.09.2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and

impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with

the same?

Point:-

8) Sri Aravala Rama Rao, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, wound contend that the testimony

of P.W.1 has corroboration from the evidence of other

prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.2 father of P.W.1, P.W.3 mother

of P.W.1 and P.W.4 brother of P.W.1. The prosecution further

examined P.W.5, the investigating officer and P.W.6, the Sub

Inspector of Police, who filed the charge sheet. The evidence of

prosecution witnesses is fully convincing. The learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Palaknoda, rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and extended benefit of doubt to A.2 to A.6,

but with reasons convicted A.1. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge with erroneous reasons set aside the conviction. The

evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is corroborative with each other.

Even A.1 administered poisonous pills to get abortion of second

issue of P.W.1 when P.W.1 was residing along with A.1 in

Military quarters. P.W.1 was necked out from the matrimonial

house by A.1 ultimately. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

with erroneous reasons, set aside the judgment of the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, as such, the

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed by setting aside

the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

9) The learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent/A.1, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, would contend that

the allegations of the prosecution consist of two stages. One is

that upon the report lodged by P.W.1 in December, 2001.

Family Counseling Center convened and set-right the issue and

after that A.1 took away P.W.1 to reside along with him. The

second stage is that it was alleged that A.1 demanded P.W.1 to

bring dowry and necked out her when they were working at his

employment place. Without proving the second stage of events,

prosecution should not rely upon the first phase of incident. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into these

issues and with cogent reasons, reversed the conviction and

sentence imposed against A.1, as such, the Criminal Revision

Case is devoid of merits.

10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that he is

leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.

11) As seen from Ex.P.1, which is a report lodged by the

defacto-complainant (P.W.1), it consists of bundle of allegations.

It alleges that on 19.03.2000 the marriage of defacto-

complainant with A.1 took place and land, gold and cash were

given towards dowry or Lanchanams and further household

articles worth of Rs.40,000/- was also given. For one year the

couple resided happily. After one year, she gave birth to a

female child. Later, at the instigation of A.2 to A.6, A.1 started

harassing her. So, ultimately alleging certain things, she lodged

a report on 22.12.2001. It further alleges that on her report,

Family Counseling Center intervened and resolved the issue and

then A.1 took P.W.1 into his fold. Further allegation is that on

01.02.2002 again she was subjected to demand of dowry and

she was beaten and she was necked out. Hence, basing on the

events said to be happened on 01.02.2002, she lodged a report

to the police. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution had two

phases. One is about the allegations prior to the earlier report,

dated 22.12.2001 and another is subsequent to 22.12.2001.

12) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the

defacto-complainant, her evidence in substance is that her

marriage with A.1 took place on 19.03.2000. Land of Ac.1-20

cents, five tulas of gold, Rs.10,000/-, half tula of gold ring were

presented to A.1. Sare Samans worth of Rs.40,000/- given to

A.1. They lead marital life happily for about one year. Out of

their wedlock, she begot one female child. All the accused used

to demand her to bring Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry

from her parents and used to harass her. Her parents expressed

their inability to do so. Then, all the accused dragged her from

out of their house and drove her out. Then they raised dispute

before the village elders. They gave report to the Family

Counseling Center, Palaknoda in order to settle the issue. The

Family Counseling Center, Palakonda called the parties and

pacified the issue and directed them to lead conjugal life. She

joined with A.1 and lead conjugal life at Jammu & Kashmir

where A.1 was working in a quarter. For a period of two or three

months, A.1 looked after her well. Thereafter, on receipt of

phone calls from the rest of the accused, A.1 harassed her and

beaten her indiscriminately. During that period, she conceived

through A.1. A.1 used to give pills and tablets for abortion of

second issue. A.1 brought her to her parents' house and left her

in the house and stated that she may report to whomsoever

concerned and so saying he left the house. Then, she lodged a

report to the police.

13) The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, parents and

younger brother of P.W.1 is almost similar as that of the

evidence of P.W.1.

14) It is no doubt true that the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, having given specific

findings that the prosecution failed to prove the demands made

by A.2 to A.6, extended an order of acquittal in favour of them,

but convicted A.1. When A.1 filed the Criminal Appeal, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of

conviction.

15) Now, it has to be seen as to whether the findings

made by the Additional Sessions Judge that prosecution failed to

prove the case against A.1 suffers with any illegality, irregularity

and impropriety.

16) The learned Additional Sessions Judge divided the

allegations in the case of the prosecution into two parts. One is

prior to the report, dated 22.12.2001 and second part is relating

to the events happened at Jammu & Kashmir after the Family

Counseling Center resolved the issue between A.1 and P.W.1.

17) The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the

view that as on account of the counseling made by the Family

Counseling Center, both A.1 and P.W.1 resided together, the

bundle of allegations prior to 22.12.2001 cannot be considered

to give findings against A.1. Hence, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge looking into the second part of the allegations,

found the A.1 not guilty. Here in limited extent, this Court would

like to differ with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge. Though the case of the prosecution consists of two parts

i.e., allegations prior to 22.12.2001 and the allegations

subsequent thereof, but the thing is that on account of initiation

taken by the Family Counseling Center, the parties decided to

bury the disputes and to lead happy marital life. In that view of

the matter, when the case of the prosecution is that A.1

subsequent to the said resolving of the disputes, again

subjected P.W.1 to cruelty, definitely, even the first part of the

allegations can be looked into, if the second part of the

allegations are proved to be true. In other words, this Court

cannot simply exclude the first part of the allegations from

consideration. But, the prosecution has to prove the so-called

cruel attitude shown by A.1 towards P.W.1 subsequent to

22.12.2001. If the prosecution is able to prove all those

allegations, definitely, it can also rely upon the events prior to

22.12.2001. Keeping in view the evidence is to be appreciated.

18) As seen from Ex.P.1, the crucial allegation is that

when P.W.1 and A.1 started residing together on 01.02.2002, all

the accused beaten her and sent her out with a demand to bring

additional dowry. Now, when it comes to the evidence of P.W.1,

she spoken the events prior to 22.12.2001 and her evidence

subsequent to her joining with A.1 is that when she and A.1 lead

conjugal life at Jammu & Kashmir, A.1 looked after her well and

on receipt of phone calls from rest of the accused, he harassed

and beat her indiscriminately and when she conceived

pregnancy, he administered pills so as to terminate the

pregnancy and thereafter, brought her to her parents' house and

left her in the house, as such, she gave a report. Admittedly,

the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 administered pills to her so as to

terminate the second pregnancy is without any basis and it is an

improvement for the first time before the Court below. So that

allegation cannot be considered. The next allegation is that A.1

used to harass and beat her indiscriminately all over the body

and later took her to her parents' house and left her stating that

she may do whatever she would like to say. The narration of

the evidence as above by P.W.1 never disclosed that at Jammu

& Kashmir, A.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry.

Admittedly, P.W.2 to P.W.4 were not witnesses to the so-called

events that took place at Jammu & Kashmir. As seen from

Ex.P.1, there is no whisper that A.1 administered pills to P.W.1

so as to terminate her pregnancy. It alleges as if all the accused

driven her out in the evening of 01.02.2002 at 6-00 p.m. P.W.1

did not whisper literally that on that day she was driven her out

by all the accused.

19) Apart from the above, according to P.W.2 with

regard to the events that took place after P.W.1 and A.1 were

stated to have resolved their disputes, his evidence is that A.1

took away P.W.1 to Jammu & Kashmir to lead conjugal life and

lead marital life for three months and he used to harass and

beat P.W.1 and used to administer pills. Even he was not a

witness to the events at Jammu & Kashmir. Similar is the

situation in respect of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. There

is no whisper from P.W.1 as to how she would keep quiet at

Jammu & Kashmir when A.1 allegedly beat her. Therefore, the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the truthfulness of the

case of the prosecution with regard to the events that took place

at Jammu & Kashmir. So, the allegations in the second part

were not proved by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution

cannot rely upon the first part i.e., incident prior to 22.12.2001

without proving the allegations subsequent to 22.12.2001

because both P.W.1 and A.1 buried their differences and resided

together at Jammu & Kashmir.

20) In my considered view, absolutely, the evidence

adduced by the prosecution is not at all convincing. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into the broad spectrum

of the prosecution case and divided the allegations into two

parts, one is prior to 22.12.2001 and another is after

22.12.2001 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not

found bonafidies in the case of the prosecution and rightly set

aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Palakonda. The judgment of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal, irregular and

improper.

21) Having regard to the overall facts and

circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the

same.

22) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 04.04.2023.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1885 OF 2008

Date: 04.04.2023

PGR