Smt. B.Swapna , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 5 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4521 Tel

                 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1234 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397

and 401 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2008 passed

in S.C. No. 255 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

P.W.1, the father of the victim-P.W.5 made a complaint on

07.03.2006 alleging that the marriage of his daughter-P.W. 5 was

performed with A.1 on 21.05.2004 and in the marriage, he gave a

dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs along with 30 tulas of gold and customary

presentations. subsequent to the marriage, A.1 along with his

family members, A.2 to A.5 used to harass her and that they were

asking her to consume poison and die so that they can perform

another marriage to her husband. On 07.03.2006, the complainant

received information that his daughter was admitted in Apollo

Hospital and her condition was serious and that she informed to her

brother that she was going to die and asked him to take her away

from her in-laws' house. On the basis of the said complaint, police

registered a crime No. 162 of 2006 for the offences under Section

498-A and 307 IPC and after completion of investigation, police laid

the charge sheet against all the accused for the offence under Section

498-A IPC and against A1 to A4 for offence under Section 307 IPC.

The learned Trial Court, on evaluation of evidence brought on

record, acquitted all the accused of the offence under Section 498-A

IPC and A2 to A4 of offence under Section 307 IPC basing on

omissions and contradictions elicited in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-injured and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri C. Sharan

Reddy, the learned counsel for the accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial

Court erred in coming to the conclusion, relying on the evidence of

P.W.7 with regard to demand of dowry, that the issue was pacified

upto conducting panchayat. But, in their evidence, P.Ws. 1 to 5 have

clearly deposed that there is demand from A.1 to A.5 and therefore,

the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused of the

offence under Section 498-A IPC. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to

8 clinchingly established that A.2 to A.4 have committed offence

under Section 307 IPC and therefore, they should have been

convicted for the said offence basing on the evidence adduced by the

prosecution.

As regards the offence under Section 498-A IPC, considering

the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 to 8, the learned Trial Court has

observed as under:-

"But Yadaiah in whose house a panchayat was held was not

examined by the prosecution. He was not even cited as a witness. Even

Ashok Yadav who accompanied P.W.1 was not examined. The evidence of

P.W.1 regarding the panchayat and the demand of the accused is an

omission and any event after Srimantham of P.W.5 is an omission in the

161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.3 on that aspect is

also an omission. So also, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The omissions are

proved through P.W. 8. When the material witnesses are not examined by

the prosecution and the evidence of the material witnesses, regarding the

material aspect of demand of dowry is pointed out as an omission, it is not

safe to believe the versions of the witnesses that they could not state all the

facts to the police as they wanted them to be brief."

With regard to the offence under Section 307 IPC against A2 to

A.4, the learned Trial Court has observed as under:-

"The cross-examination has revealed artificiality of the events which

followed the administration of bagon spray. She did not bother to approach

any neighbouring houses, to make a telephone call. She can not be expected

to have a correct calculation of the time after which she would fall

unconscious after the administration of bagon spray to the level, sufficient

to kill her. She would not venture to go out alone to telephone to her

brother, as it might cause consequential unconsciousness in her, probably

on the way. She stated that the watchman was not informed about the

incident, as he was not present at that time. The evidence of P.W.8 is that

there is no watchman for the said complex which is contrary to the evidence

of P.W. 5. The ignorance of P.W.5 about her immediate neighbor also does

not appeal to the common understanding and belief. It was only in her

cross-examination, that she came with an explanation that she could not

inform the watchman as he was not present. The narration made by her in

the chief-examination, shows that she did not make any effort at all to

inform about the incident to anyone."

As observed by the learned Trial Court, the evidence of P.Ws.

1 to 5 suffers from omissions and contradictions. It appears, due to

the disputes between the parties, P.W. 1 might have submitted

Ex.P. 1 report to the Police. The evidence brought on record is not

sufficient to convict the accused of the offences with which they are

charged. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The above findings

recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on cogent reasons and

on appreciation of evidence on record. No ground is made out to

interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial

Court.

The Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 21-12-2021 tsr

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1234 of 2008

DATE: 21-12-2021