Ampolu Venkata Ramana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4624 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI


                      CRL.R.C.No.1066 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment

of the learned I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.216 of 2004, dated 20.06.2006, whereby the

learned Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence

imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 for the offence

punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, reduced the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year six months imposed

against the revision petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of I.P.C., by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-

cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.185 of 2000, dated

14.07.2004, to one year rigorous imprisonment without disturbing

the fine amount imposed against him.

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-

A1 and P.W.1 took place on 15.02.1997 as per the Hindu Rites and

Customs and at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 7 tulas of gold and 10 tulas of silver

ornaments towards dowry apart from household articles worth

Rs.25,000/- to A-1. It is stated that since the date of marriage, on the

instigation of other accused, A-1 started harassing her both mentally

and physically and necked her out of their house for additional

dowry. After giving birth to a female child, the accused did not

GSD, J Crlrc_1066_2006

allow P.W.1 to lead matrimonial life with A-1 and in the panchayat,

the accused stated that if P.W.1 brings the additional dowry amount

of Rs.5.00 lakhs from her parents, they will allow her to lead

matrimonial life with A-1. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint

before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No.23 of 2000 was

registered against the accused for the offences punishable under

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

Prohibition Act. Again, on 03.02.2000, P.W.1 came to the police

Station and lodged additional complaint stating that A-1 had his

first wife with two children and without disclosing the same, he

married her. The police, after completion of investigation, filed a

charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 495 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P9 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-4 and A-5 for the offences with which they

were charged, found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty of the offences

punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year six months

GSD, J Crlrc_1066_2006

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine

of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of

one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. However, the revision petitioner-A1 was found not

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 495 of I.P.C. and

Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly he was

acquitted for the said charges.

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

learned I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while

setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the

revision petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, reduced the sentence of one year six months

rigorous imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. to one year

rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the sentence of fine.

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

revision.

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

GSD, J Crlrc_1066_2006

The law is well settled that the High Court cannot interfere

with the concurrent findings of the Courts below unless there is no

legal evidence to support the findings of the Courts below or the

appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is perverse and it

resulted in miscarriage of justice. So it has to be seen whether in the

instant case the findings of the Courts below are supported by legal

evidence and if so, whether the appreciation of evidence by the

Courts below is perverse.

A perusal of the material available on record would show that

on 03.02.2000, P.W.1 again came to the Women Police Station and

lodged Ex.P8-additional complaint stating that her husband/A-1

had his first wife with two children and without disclosing the same,

the revision petitioner/A-1 again married her and as such P.W.1

requested the police to take action against A-1 under Section 495 of

I.P.C.

In similar circumstances the Apex Court in Shivcharan Lal

Verma and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 set aside the

conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on the ground that the

alleged marriage with the deceased therein was during the

subsistence of a valid marriage with the first wife. It was a case

where the prosecution alleged that during the lifetime of the first

(2007) 15 SCC 369

GSD, J Crlrc_1066_2006

wife Kalindi, Shiv Charan married for the second time Mohini, but

after marriage both Kalindi and Shiv Charan tortured Mohini as a

result of which she ultimately committed suicide by burning herself.

The incident occurred inside the house of Shiv Charan while Kalindi

and Shiv Charan were in one room and Mohini was in some other

room. Wherein the Apex Court has categorically observed that as

the alleged marriage with Mohini during the subsistence of a valid

marriage with Kalindi is null and void and, therefore, set aside the

conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

In the instant case also, the trial Court observed that even

though the marriage of P.W.1 with the revision petitioner/A-1 has

not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but, the fact of P.W.1

and the revision petitioner/A-1 were living as wife and husband has

been established and hence, convicted the revision petitioner/A-1

for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., which was

confirmed by the appellate Court.

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the judgment of the

Apex Court referred to above and since the marriage of P.W.1 with

the revision petitioner/A-1 was solemnized during the subsistence

of a valid marriage with the first wife of A-1 and in view of the

categorical observation made by the trail Court that the marriage of

P.W.1 with the revision petitioner/A-1 has not been proved beyond

GSD, J Crlrc_1066_2006

all reasonable doubt, 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. is liable to be set aside.

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. The

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by

the appellate Court for the offence punishable 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 gkv/Gsn