Md. Khaleel Ahmed, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4623 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                        CRL.R.C.No.425 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment

of the learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.134 of 2007, dated 05.03.2008, whereby the

learned Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence of rigorous

imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default simple

imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of I.P.C, imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 by

the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad, in C.C.No.141 of 2002, dated 12.02.2007.

Brief facts of the case are that on 01.08.2001, the Police,

Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, received a private

complaint of P.W.1/de facto complainant through the Court for

investigation and report. It is stated in the report that the marriage

of P.W.1 with the revision petitioner/A1 took place on 18.02.1993 as

per Muslim Rites and Customs and A-2 to A-5 are the family

members of A-1. At the time of marriage on the demand made by

A-1 to A-5, the parents of P.W.1 gave sufficient dowry in the form of

cash and kind and after the marriage also A-1 to A-5 demanded

additional dowry of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1 and the same was

received by the accused. All the accused persons harassed and

subjected P.W.1 to cruelty both mentally and physically and set her

ablaze by pouring kerosene on her and caused burn injuries. On

06.02.2001 all the accused persons drove P.W.1 from their house by

retaining all her belongings. Basing on the private complaint of

P.W.1, a case in Crime No.353 of 2001 was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 4

and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after completion of

investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused.

The accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the

accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. On a

perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial

Court, while acquitting A-2 to A-5 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act and A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly

convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the said

offence.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A1, the

learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,

confirmed the conviction sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A1 preferred this

criminal revision.

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to

Section 498-A of I.P.C., which reads as under:-

"Section 498-A of I.P.C.:- Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) 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."

Admittedly, the revision petitioner/A-1 has been convicted

and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of

I.P.C. In order to establish a charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., the

prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cruelty was

meted out to the victim wife. Since, cruelty has been defined by the

statute itself for the purpose of Section 498- A of I.P.C., prosecution

is also under the obligation to prove 'cruelty', which must come

within the purview of the definition given in Explanation to the

Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, it is not any cruelty or harassment

that would attract the penal provision of Section 498-A of I.P.C.

A perusal of the material available on record, evidently,

except the oral testimony of the P.W.1/victim, there was no direct

evidence to support the prosecution version as to the torture and

harassment. All the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated

about the harassment made by the accused persons and also the

burn injuries sustained by P.W.1. The record reveals that the

prosecution failed to examine the doctor or produce any medical

certificate to prove that the burn injuries were received by P.W.1 in

the hands of the accused. Further, the witnesses did not specifically

mention what type of harassment each accused caused to P.W.1 and

they simply stated in their evidence that the accused harassed P.W.1,

but nothing has been stated specifically regarding any incidence

attributable to torture or harassment and as such, oral testimony of

the witnesses was totally vague and omnibus without allegation of

any specific incidence. Such vague and omnibus assertion without

allegation of any specific incidence attributable to the cruelty or

harassment is not sufficient to constitute 'cruelty' within the

meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, from a bare perusal of

the oral testimony of the witnesses, it appears that the prosecution

failed to adduce adequate evidence to establish the 'cruelty' within

the meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C.

For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the revision

petitioner/A-1, in my considered view, has suffered from illegality

and caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, the conviction and

sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. are liable to be set aside.

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. The

conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/A-1 by

the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence

under Section 498-A of I.P.C. are hereby set aside and the revision

petitioner/A-1 is acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if any,

paid by the revision petitioner/A-1 shall be refunded to him.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

28-12-2021 Gsn