Kothaluri Vijaya Kumar, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1768 AP

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1706 OF 2008

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who

is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2006, on the file of IV

Additional Sessions Judge ("Additional Sessions Judge" for

short), East Godavari at Kakinada, challenging the judgment,

dated 18.11.2008, where under the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner,

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in

C.C.No.240 of 2002, on the file of III Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kakinada.

      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 State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Samalakot Police Station, filed charged sheet in Crime

No.94 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) against A.1 to A.3.

      4)    The case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows:

      (i) A.1 to A.3 are residents of VDO Quarters, Samalkot.

A.2 is grandmother of A.1 and A.3 is daughter of A.2. L.W.1-
                                 2


Kothaluri Suneetha, resident of VDO quarters, Samalkot, is the

defacto-complainant and L.W.2-Kukkala Surya Rao and L.W.3-

Kukkala Swarnalatha are her parents.

     (ii) The marriage of the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) with

A.1 was performed on 21.05.1995 in the presence of elders and

relatives as per their caste custom. At the time of marriage, the

parents of L.W.1 agreed to give Rs.1,00,000/- whenever A.1

could get job. But, he could not get any job. Later, he worked as

Compounder in a private hospital for some time and worked as

Security Guard in Paper Mills, Rajahmundry for some time. He

looked after L.W.1 properly till the birth of one son and one

daughter. Subsequently, with the active instigation of grand-

mother (A.2) and her daughter (A.3), A.1 subjected the

complainant to harassment and mental torture demanding to

bring Rs.1,00,000/- and a Scooter from her parents.

     (iii) On 15.07.2002 with the same demand, A.1 pressed

the neck of L.W.1 and kicked on her chest demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and a Scooter from her

parents.   She    informed     the     same   to    L.W.4-Saladi

Chandrakantham, who in turn informed the same to the parents

of victim. The parents of victim and others asked A.1 about his

behavior. A.1 refused to take back L.W.1 for family life. Hence,

L.W.1 came to the police station and presented a report. Basing
                                       3


on the report, a case in Crime No.94 of 2002 under Sections

498-A and 323 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and investigated

into. L.W.7-the Sub Inspector of Police forwarded L.W.1 to

Government         Hospital,    Samalakot    for    treatment.        During

investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their

statements.       On 22.07.2002 at 10-30 a.m. he arrested A.1 to

A.3 and forwarded for remand. L.W.6-Medical Officer treated

L.W.1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Hence,

the charge sheet.

         5)     The   learned   III   Additional   Judicial   First    Class

Magistrate, Kakinada, took cognizance of the offences under

Sections 498-A and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and issued summons to

the accused. On appearance of the accused before the Court

below, copies of documents were furnished as required under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for

short).       The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kakinada, framed charges under Sections 498-A and 323

r/w 34 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.3 and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

         6)     During the course of trial before the trial Court, on

behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the
                                      4


prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in

the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which they denied

the same and stated that they were implicated falsely and that

they have no defence witnesses.

     7)    The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kakinada, on hearing both sides and on considering the

evidence on record, found A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the charges

under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and acquitted

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

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada found A.1 guilty of

charges under Sections 498-A and 323 of I.P.C. and convicted

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

the quantum of sentence, the learned Magistrate sentenced him

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

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

months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further

sentenced A.1 to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under

Section   323   of   I.P.C.   Felt   aggrieved   of   the   same,   the

unsuccessful A.1 fled Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2006, on the file

of IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at

Kakinada, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging
                                 5


the same, the unsuccessful appellant, filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.

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

the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment

of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at

Kakinada, in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2006, dated 18.11.2008,

suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and

whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

Point:-

      9)    Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Revision

Petitioner, would contend that even according to the case of the

prosecution, A.1 married the defacto-complainant without any

dowry, as such, it is rather unbelievable that he would demand

further dowry. A.1 and defacto-complainant were the close

relatives prior to the marriage. So, he married the defacto-

complainant without taking any dowry. The defacto-complainant

raised false allegations against A.1. Both the Courts below

erroneously convicted the Revision Petitioner. The witnesses

examined by the prosecution before the Court below were

interested witnesses and their evidence had no corroboration

from the independent source, as such, the Criminal Revision

Case is liable to be allowed.
                                  6


        10)   Sri   Y.   Jagadeeswara   Rao,   learned    counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

both the Courts below on thorough appreciation of the evidence,

found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the charges and rightly

convicted him and the judgment of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity or

impropriety, as such, he sought to dismiss the Criminal Revision

Case.

        11)   There is no dispute about the fact that A.1 is no

other than the son of paternal aunt of the defacto-complainant.

Their marriage was not in dispute. P.W.1 is the defacto-

complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the father

of P.W.1, P.W.4 is also relative of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 is

the relative of A.1 as well as P.W.1. P.W.7 is the investigating

officer.

        12)   The evidence of P.W.1 in substance is that her

marriage with A.1 took place on 21.05.1995. Her parents agreed

to give some amount to secure employment to her husband.

Later, they paid Rs.40,000/- for employment purpose. A.1

worked as Security Guard in Paper Mill at Rajahmundry for some

time and worked as a Compounder in a private hospital for some

time. After two years, they were blessed with a male child.

Later, they resided in the house of A.2. Thereafter, A.1
                                 7


developed illicit intimacy with another lady and harassed her to

bring additional dowry Rs.1,00,000/- and also a Scooter.     On

15.07.2002

A.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- and when she expressed that her parents are not

able to pay the amount, then he beat her, pressed her neck and

kicked her with his legs on her chest. She narrated the incident

to L.W.4-Chandrakantham, who is her paternal aunt. L.W.4

advised her to tell the incident to her parents. Then she

informed the same to her parents. When her parents came there

and questioned the same to accused, they replied that whatever

they wanted to do, they can do. As there is no other go, she

lodged Ex.P.1 report to the police.

13) The evidence of P.W.2 is that at the time of

marriage, they agreed to give the amount for employment and

later they gave Rs.40,000/- to A.1 in installments. A.1 looked

after P.W.1 till the birth of a male child and later started

harassment by demanding to bring Rs.1,00,000/- towards

additional dowry. He developed illicit intimacy with a lady

belongs to Peddapuram. On 15.07.2002 he demanded additional

dowry and beat P.W.1. P.W.1 revealed the incident to L.W.4-

Chandrakantham, who is their relative. Then she, L.W.2 and

L.W.5-Vara Prasad went to the house of the accused on

17.07.2002 and questioned their act and then they demanded

Rs.1,00,000/- and a Scooter. Then, P.W.1 lodged a report with

the police.

14) The evidence of P.W.3 is also same as that of the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Through him Ex.P.2 photograph

is marked with corresponding negative showing photograph of

A.1 with a woman of Peddapuram by name Satyavathi.

15) P.W.4 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

and further fact that on 15.07.2002 P.W.1 informed to her that

A.1 beat her indiscriminately with a demand to bring additional

dowry and she came to her house with injuries. Then, she

advised her to inform the same to her parents. Her parents

came to Samalakot. A.1 again demanded for dowry.

16) P.W.5 is the Medical Officer, who deposed that on

17.07.2002 at 11-15 a.m., he examined P.W.1 and found a

scratch mark of 1 cm on the right side of face 2 cm to croner of

mouth, two scratch marks of 1 cm, 1 cm apart on the front of

neck, 1 cm to the right of miline at its center and two scratch

marks of 1.5 cm, 1.5 cm apart on the left sternomastriod muscle

area and its middle. He issued Ex.P.3 wound certificate opining

that the injuries are simple in nature.

17) P.W.6 is relative of P.W.1 as well as accused, who

deposed that A.1 developed illicit intimacy with a woman

belonged to Peddapuram and addicted to bad vices and on

15.07.2002 accused demanded Scooter and dowry and beat

P.W.1. He came to know about the occurrence and went to the

house of accused and questioned the act, but accused

demanded for dowry.

        18)    P.W.7 is the investigating officer.

        19)    There is no dispute about the fact that A.1 is the son

of paternal aunt of P.W.1. Prior to the marriage, they have close

relation. Admittedly, according to the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2, at the time of marriage, no dowry was given. But, the

case of the prosecution is that after the marriage, the parents of

P.W.1 provided cash of Rs.40,000/- to A.1 for his employment.

The contention of the petitioner is that because no dowry was

taken by him at the time of marriage, there is no question of

Section 498-A of I.P.C. attributed against him.

20) According to Section 498-A of I.P.C. explanation, the

harassment made against a married woman need not be on

account of a demand for dowry. Explanation (b) provides

harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view

to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on

account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet

such demand. So, the unlawful demand under Section 498-A of

I.P.C. need not be confined to the dowry.

21) Admittedly, as seen from Ex.P.1, the defacto-

complainant alleged that no dowry was given to the accused at

the time of marriage, but the father of P.W.1 agreed to provide

some money in connection with the job which may be obtained

by the A.1. Here the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is that after

the marriage a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given to A.1 for

employment purpose. Under the circumstances, the contention

of the petitioner that because no dowry was given to him at the

time of marriage, there was no question of any further demand

for money is not tenable.

22) The substance of Ex.P.1 is that A.1 started harassing

P.W.1 for money and developed illicit intimacy with a woman

and on 15.07.2002 when she did not provide Rs.1,00,000/- to

him, he attacked her by pressing her neck and kicked on the

chest. The allegations are that she revealed the incident to

P.W.4 and according to her advice, she intimated to her parents

and when her parents questioned, A.1 challenged them.

Therefore, P.W.1 came out and lodged a report with police. Her

evidence has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P.1. P.W.2

and P.W.3, parents of P.W.1, supported her case. P.W.4 also

supported the case of the prosecution.

23) During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that at the

time of marriage, no dowry was given to the accused. A.1 is the

son of her paternal aunt. She studied up to 10th class. She did

not mention the name and address of the person with whom A.1

developed illicit intimacy. She did not issue any legal notice

when the accused demanded her to bring the Scooter. The

amount of Rs.40,000/- was not given at once. But, it is income

out of the earnings of her parents. She deposed that she did not

issue any legal notice prior to the filing of the case. She denied

that she is deposing false. During the cross examination P.W.2

reiterated that they gave Rs.40,000/- to A.1 after the marriage.

In spite of probing cross examination, nothing was elicited from

the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2. During cross

examination of P.W.3, the father of victim, also nothing was

elicited. Similar is the situation relating to the evidence of

P.W.4.

24) Accused has no probable say as to the

circumstances on which P.W.1 came out from his house and

lodged Ex.P.1, except the case that he is falsely implicated. It is

to be noticed that to file a criminal case like Ex.P.1, P.W.1 need

not give any legal notice. Even it is not a case where she is

pursuing her remedies for any matrimonial reliefs. Hence, the

fact that she did not issue any legal notice, etc., is not going to

affect her testimony in any way.

25) There was physical harm caused to P.W.1

according to allegations of the prosecution. Her evidence has

corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5, the medical officer.

So, it is a case where P.W.1 appears to have tolerated all ill-

treatments and ultimately came out when she was subjected to

an attack by A.1. A.1 has no probable say as to how P.W.1 came

out and lodged a report against him except a plea of false

implication.

26) It is to be noticed that during the evidence of P.W.3,

prosecution got marked Ex.P.2, a photograph with

corresponding negative where A.1 was found with a woman.

Except the contention that it was fabricated, there remained

nothing to impeach Ex.P.2, which is a photograph, showing A.1

and a woman with a negative. The contention of the prosecution

is that A.1 developed illicit intimacy with a woman. A.1 has no

probable say as to who is the woman in Ex.P.2 photograph. It is

a case where she was subjected to harassment mentally and

also physically which is evident from her evidence coupled with

medical evidence.

27) In my considered view, the learned III Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and the learned Additional Sessions Judge

looked into the facts and circumstances in proper perspective

analyzed the contention of the appellant in the criminal appeal.

By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the

judgment of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at

Kakinada suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety.

28) Having regard to the above, I do not see any reason

whatsoever to interfere with the judgment of the learned IV

Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada.

29) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

30) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court

to the trial Court on or before 10.04.2023 and on such

certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry

out the sentence imposed against the appellant (accused) and to

report compliance to this Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 31.03.2023.

PGR

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

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1706 OF 2008

Date: 31.03.2023

PGR