Narmada Talakola , vs Vishwanadha Reddy And 3 Others,
2022 Latest Caselaw 166 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                         CRL.R.C.No.639 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision

petitioner-de facto complainant against the judgment, dated

18.02.2008, passed in C.C.No.198 of 2004 on the file of the XIII-

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court),

Hyderabad, acquitting the respondents 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 for the

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

6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between A-1

and P.W.1 was an arranged marriage, which took place on

24.05.2001. At the time of marriage negotiations, there was no

discussion about the demanding of dowry or payment of dowry.

After fixing the date and venue and distribution of wedding cards,

when the accused demanded the parents of P.W.1 to give 20 tulas of

gold and Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, the parents of P.W.1 fulfilled their

demand by raising loans from friends and relatives. After the

marriage, A-1 left U.S.A on 30.05.2001 by saying that he would send

all necessary papers to P.W.1 within a short period and that P.W.1

stayed at her parents' house at Hyderabad and attending her office

daily. It is also alleged that A-2 to A-7 stayed in the parents house

of P.W.1, who came to bid farewell to A-1, and after one week, A-2

asked P.W.1 and her parents to transfer the house which was at

L.I.C. Colony, Hyderabad, in her favour as the amount given at the

time of marriage was not sufficient and that they deserve more

money as her son is working as Software Engineer at U.S.A., for

which the parents of P.W.1 expressed their inability to transfer the

said house as they are having four other daughters. Further, A-6

demanded P.W.1 to resign her job and purchase four diamond

bangles for her, for which also P.W.1 and her parents expressed their

inability to meet their demands. Thereafter, all the accused started

harassing P.W.1 by abusing her and her family in filthy language.

The accused also warned P.W.1 that they would not allow her to go

to U.S.A., without fulfilling their demands and that they will

perform second marriage to A-1 by taking huge amounts and also

warned P.W.1 that if she would raise any objection for the same,

they would kill her. The accused continuously harassed her to

transfer the house and demanded another Rs.5.00 lakhs and 30 tulas

of gold apart from diamond bangles. P.W.1 faced all the problems

and humiliations in the hands of accused for a period of three

months hoping that all these problems will be solved once she joins

her husband at U.S.A. A-1 sent all the necessary papers from U.S.A.,

and P.W.1 went to U.S.A. on 25.08.2001 and joined with A-1 at

California. A-1 was happy with P.W.1 for two days and from third

day onwards A-1 started demanding P.W.1 to transfer her parents

house at Hyderabad and a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as it is requires for

his parents to perform his sister's marriage. He also stated to P.W.1

that he married her with an intention to grab the house and extra

money from P.W.1. When P.W.1 expressed her inability, A-1 started

harassing her by not looking after her properly, not allowing her to

go out of the house, not giving the basic needs required for her, not

providing proper food and used to beat her mercilessly on many

occasions. P.W.1 was forced to spend many nights in front of the

door of the flat and she faced all the problems with a hope that her

husband will change one day or the other and behaves at least like a

human being, but her hopes are totally shattered as the harassment

was increased day-by-day. It is further alleged that P.W.1 suffered

with mental agony and unbearable torture in the hands of A-1. On

15.01.2001 from midnight onwards A-1 started beating P.W.1 and

thereafter the police came to her house and having seen the injuries

on her body, the police arrested A-1 and a case was registered

against A-1. P.W.1 went to police station and requested them to

release A-1 and on production of surety of 5000 dollars by P.W.1, the

police released A-1. Thereafter, A-1 sent P.W.1 to India on

17.01.2002 by saying that she should come back to U.S.A. only after

fulfilling their demands of transfer of house in favour of his mother-

A-2 and payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs and 30 tulas of gold and diamond

bangles. When the parents of P.W.1 asked A-2 and her husband

about the harassment made by A-1 and the manner in which he sent

P.W.1 to India by force, they replied that their son has done a right

thing and without fulfilling their demands, they will not allow

P.W.1 to go back to America. On 09.04.2002 when the elders by

name D.Sambi Reddy, A.Basvi Reddy, Marianna and the parents of

P.W.1 went to the house of A-1 at Muppalla, the family members of

A-1 refused to talk to them. To her utter shock and surprise, on

30.04.2002 at 6.30 P.M., P.W.1 received summons along with a

petition filed for divorce by A-1 in the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa. Thereafter, the parents of P.W.1 went to the house

of accused, on 11.05.2002, and requested them to allow P.W.1 to stay

with them only at Ongole until A-1 allows her to stay with him and

by leaving P.W.1 at their house, they returned back to Hyderabad.

Nobody in the house talked to P.W.1 and when P.W.1 was sleeping

in the room, the accused used to lock the door from outside and they

did not open it till next day morning and A-2 told P.W.1 that she can

no longer stay in the house as she did not fulfill their demands. It is

also alleged that when P.W.1 went to bathroom, she suffered current

shock arranged by A-6 and A-7 and thereafter they asked P.W.1 to

leave the house immediately and when she refused to do the same,

A-2 and A-3 caught hold the hair of P.W.1 and dragged her and that

A-4 and A-5 encouraged them by shouting to throw her out and kill

her. Thereafter A-2 and A-3 came to Hyderabad along with three

goondas to her house to obtain the signatures of P.W.1 on bond

papers by saying that she has to give consent for divorce petition

filed by A-1 and when P.W.1 resisted the same, A-2 and A-3 went

away and stated that they would perform second marriage to their

son. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case in Crime

No.223 of 2002 was registered against the accused. On completion

of investigation, the Police laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 and

A-6 and A-7, which was taken cognizance against them for the

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

6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequently, the proceedings

against A-6 and A-7 were quashed by the High Court vide order,

dated 26.07.2006 in Crl.P.No.3904 of 2004. Hence, A-1 to A-3 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 8 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the

accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D9 were

marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and

documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably

failed to prove the offences against A-1 to A-3 and accordingly,

acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of

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

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/de facto complainant

preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto

complainant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to

3/accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

4th respondent-State and perused the record.

Since the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the

judgment of acquittal, the revision petitioner/de facto complainant

preferred this Criminal Revision Case. A perusal of the impugned

judgment would show that, the trial Court, on a consideration of the

entire evidence available on record, held that the evidence of P.Ws.1

to 5 did not corroborate any of the allegations as alleged by P.W.1 in

Ex.P1 and the allegations in Ex.P1 are developed as per the whims

and fancies of each witness and as such they became contrary to

Ex.P1. The trial Court has given a categorical finding that the

allegation of payment of dowry and date and time of payment of

dowry were also not corroborated. The evidence of P.W.1 is that

A-2 and A-3 harassed her during her stay at her in-laws house at

Ongole, whereas P.W.7-Investigating Officer stated that he did not

conduct any investigation either at Ongole or Muppalla. Relying on

the evidence of P.W.7-Inspector of Police, who categorically

admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him about the harassment

made by A-2 and A-3 and the date and time and mode of

harassment either at Ongole or Muppalla, the trial Court held that

the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations of demand

of dowry, payment of dowry and the harassment made by the

accused for additional dowry. It is further held by the trial Court

that the documents filed by P.W.1 did not show that A-1 harassed

her for additional dowry amount at U.S.A. Hence, the prosecution

miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against A-1 to A-3.

Apart from the above discussion, this Court is cautious of the

fact that, this is a revision against acquittal and the scope in revision

against acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to

the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that

can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh

disposal and such an interference, is not automatic and shall be in

rarest of rare cases. In view of the material available on record, this

Court is of the view that this revision is not one of such rarest of rare

cases where such interference is required.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

Counsel appearing on both sides and also perusing the impugned

judgment, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has given

sufficient and cogent reasons while acquitting A-1 to A-3 and the

same cannot be interfered with. I find no merit in this revision.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

24-01.2022.

Gsn