Venigandla Rajyalakshmi, vs Venigandla Venkata ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 35 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.960 OF 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'),

came to be filed by the petitioner namely Venigandla

Rajyalakshmi, who was the de-facto complainant and examined as

prosecution witness No.1 (PW.1) in C.C. No.28 of 2007, on the file

of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur (for short,

'the learned Magistrate'), against the judgment, dated 01.04.2009,

where under the learned Magistrate found the first

respondent/sole accused, not guilty of for the offence under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')

and acquitted him under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

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 the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ponnur Town Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.8 of 2007 for

the offences under Sections 498-A and 341 of IPC. The case of the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

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

charge sheet filed by the Police, is as follows:

The marriage of the de-facto complainant i.e., LW.1-

Venigandla Rajyalakshmi was performed with the accused on

27.04.1990. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto

complainant presented cash of Rs.25,000/- to the accused as

dowry, 20 sovereigns of gold to her and cash of Rs.10,000/-

towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanam to the sister of the accused.

They also presented Ac.1.00 cents of wet land to her towards

Pasupu Kunkuma apart from the marriage expenses of

Rs.50,000/-. The accused used to beat the de-facto complainant

for want of additional dowry. He developed illicit intimacy with one

Nagamani. Ten years after the marriage, accused necked out her

from the house as such she went to her parent's house at

Hyderabad. When the mother of the accused passed away, she

returned to the house of the accused. At that time, the father-in-

law of LW.1 and others admonished her. Then, she stayed at her

in-laws house. Thereafter, her father-in-law also passed away

within a span of three months. Accused was addicted to bad vices

and developed illicit intimacy with one Nagamani. He started

harassing her and subjected her to mental torture. He harassed

the de-facto complainant and also her children. On one occasion

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

accused also leaked the gas cylinder so as to kill her and also

demanded her to bring money. She informed the same to her

parents, who pacified the issue. Then, she stayed with the

accused. He threatened the de-facto complainant that he will

marry one Nagamani if she failed to bring additional dowry. On

10.01.2007, she left Ponnur and went to Hyderabad to her

parent's house during Sankranthi vacation and she came back on

21.01.2007 to Ponnur along with her children and father. Then

the accused necked her out and her children and, in spite of

requests, he did not allow them to enter into the house. On

21.01.2007, she gave report to Police, who registered the same as

a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 and after completion of investigation

filed charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate, Ponnur took cognizance of the case

against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and,

after completing necessary formalities, framed charge under

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

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. After

closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was subjected

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

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

circumstances for which he denied the same and reported no

defence evidence but filed certified copy of the judgment in C.C.

No.123 of 2006, which is shown as Ex.D-1 in the Memo of

evidence of the judgment of the trial Court.

6. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and on

consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence on

record, found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section

498-A IPC and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

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

the present Criminal Revision Case.

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

arises for consideration is whether the impugned judgment suffers

with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety?

9. Sri Sridhar Dasari, learned counsel, representing learned

counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Court may

dispose of the matter on merits by looking into the evidence on

record.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

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

learned Public Prosecutor, also made such a statement.

11. None represented on behalf of the first respondent/accused.

12. The allegations against the accused before the Court below

are under Section 498-A IPC. For better appreciation, it is

pertinent to look into the substance of the report lodged by the de-

facto complainant before the Police. So, as seen from Ex.P-1,

which is the report in writing, it refers that on 27.04.1990 the

marriage of the de-facto complainant with the accused took place

with presentation of Rs.25,000/- cash, 20 sovereigns of gold,

Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaduch Lanchanam and Ac.1.00 cents of

wet land towards Pasupu Kunkuma besides marriage expenses of

Rs.50,000/-. They lived happily for a period of ten years. After ten

years, accused used to subject her to physical and mental torture

by demanding additional dowry without providing the bare

necessities of food, clothes and school fee etc., to their children. He

was accustomed to bad habits and driven her out. Then, she

reached her parent's house at Hyderabad. After her mother-in-

laws death, she, at the advise of elders, started residing with her

husband and after three months her father-in-law also passed

away and then accused was addicted to bad vices and developed

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

illicit intimacy. He tried to kill her by leaking the gas from the

cylinder but she could escape and called her parents, who came

and pacified the issue. Even after that, he continued the illicit

intimacy with Nagamani. After Sankranthi festival, she went to her

parent's house along with children and when she returned along

with the children on 21.01.2007, accused did not allow them to

enter into the house and necked out them. So, this is the

substance of the report.

13. PW.1 in his chief-examination put forth the facts by

adverting to the case of the prosecution as set out in Ex.P-1.

14. PW.2 is the father of the victim and he has spoken about the

marriage, presentation of certain things and later that accused

started demanding additional dowry and subjecting PW.1 to

harassment and that the mother of the accused expired and then

PW.1 joined with the accused and later her father-in-law was

expired and later accused developed illicit intimacy with one

Nagamani. He did not provide even provisions and school fee etc.,

to children and even tried to kill PW.1 by pouring kerosene etc.,

When she came to their house for festival and when she returned

to the house of the accused, accused did not allow them.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

15. PW.3 is son of PW.1 and accused and he has spoken that on

13.01.2007 he along with her mother and brother went to the

house of PW.2 for Sankranthi holidays. When they returned on

21.01.2007 accused did not allow them to enter into the house.

16. PWs.4 to 6 did not support the case of the prosecution. They

deposed that they do not know anything about the case.

Prosecution got marked Exs.P-2 to P-4 by way of confrontation.

17. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer.

18. The settled legal position is that under Section 401(3)

Cr.P.C, this Court cannot convert the order of acquittal into

conviction. It is only when the judgment of the trial Court is

perverse and it is rendered ignoring the evidence on record without

any proper reason, this Court is empowered to exercise the powers

of remand. It is pertinent here to refer the scope of the Revision

under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Section 397 Cr.P.C.

contemplates the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court to

exercise the powers of revision as to the correctness, legality or

propriety of any order of the Court inferior to that. Section 401 of

Cr.P.C specifically deals with the High Court's power of revision. It

is no doubt true that under Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

Cr.P.C nothing shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to

convert a finding of the acquittal into one of conviction. So, there

is a legal impediment to the effect that this Court cannot convert a

finding of the acquittal into one of conviction, which has been

specifically provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

19. So now what this Court has to see is whether the judgment

of the learned Magistrate is perverse or whether it is delivered

without considering the evidence on record by overlooking the

evidence on record.

20. POINT: To appreciate the contention in proper perspective,

the substance of Ex.P-1 is to be born in mind. There is no dispute

that PW.1 and the accused happily resided for a period of ten

years after the marriage and after ten years only disputes arose

between them. According to PW.1, accused demanded additional

dowry, developed illicit intimacy with one Nagamani and made an

attempt to kill her by leakage of gas from the cylinder and then the

disputes were pacified by her parents and when she went to her

parents house along with the children and when she returned, she

was not allowed to enter into the house of the accused. So, what

might have prompted PW.1 to lodge report is when the accused

allegedly did not allow her and her children on 21.01.2007 into the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

house when they returned from her parent's house. It is to be

noticed, as evident from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, virtually,

they did not lodge any report, whatsoever, when the accused made

so called attempt to murder PW.1 by leakage of gas from the

cylinder. So, when they did not lodge any report, whatsoever,

those allegations cannot be taken into consideration. Except the

self serving evidence of PW.1, which cannot stand to any reason,

there remained nothing to say that once upon a time accused

made an attempt to kill PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 that she was

subjected to physical torture is nothing but vague. She did not put

any instance where she was subjected to beating etc., by the

accused. It is a case where PWs.4 to 6, who were cited by the

prosecution to speak to the fact that accused did not allow PW.1

and her children to enter into the house on 21.01.2007, turned

hostile. So, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is self serving. When PW.3

was in the custody of PW.1 it is quite natural to support the case

of the prosecution. So, only thing that has to be answered is as to

whether the statement by PWs.1 to 3 that they were not allowed

into the house of the accused on particular day is believable?

21. Needless to point out here that there is no evidence to prove

that accused developed illicit intimacy with one Nagamani. So, to

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

decide about the so called incident that was happened on

20.01.2007 one has to look into Ex.D-1. As seen from Ex.D-1,

copy of the judgment in C.C. No.123 of 2006, PW.1 gave a report

to the Police alleging that on 20.09.2006 at about 04:00 or 05:00

PM, she was beaten by the accused when she was objected lifting

of the mixer grinder by the accused. The said case was ended in

acquittal. The alleged incident in C.C. No.123 of 2006 was said to

be happened in the house of the accused. Coming to Ex.P-1,

allegations were that just before Sankranthi, PW.1 went to her

parents house along with the children in view of Sankranthi

holidays and returned to the house of her in-laws on 21.01.2007.

So, by the time of the so called incident, already PW.1 lodged a

report against the accused alleging the incident on 20.09.2006. It

is really doubtful as to whether when she lodged a report against

the accused citing the incident date as 20.09.2006 she was

continuing in the house of the accused before onset of Sankranthi

holidays. So, it is crystal clear that prior to Ex.P-1, already there

was a criminal case filed by PW.1 against the accused. If that is

considered, it is really doubtful as to whether PW.1 was residing

along with the accused just before onset of Sankranthi holidays.

The basis for Ex.P-1 was episode that was alleged to be happened

on 21.01.2007.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.960/2009

22. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the learned

Magistrate took into consideration the fact that the independent

witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and there

are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and that the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is interested in nature. In the aforesaid

circumstances, I am of the considered view that the judgment of

the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse and the

learned Magistrate took into consideration the factum of C.C.

No.123 of 2006 also. Hence, this Court is of the considered view

that absolutely, there is no material on record to remand the

matter as such I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of

the learned Magistrate.

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

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 03.01.2023 DSH