M.Ajay Kumar, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3510 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1493 OF 2006
ORDER:

1 Challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.97 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Additional

Sessions Judge, Warangal, wherein and whereby the conviction and

sentence imposed against the petitioner by the learned I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, vide judgment dated

14.09.2005 in C.C.No.309 of 2002 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A of IPC was confirmed, the petitioner filed the present

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

2 The facts leading to filing of the present Criminal Revision Case

in nutshell are that the petitioner and P.W.1 fell in love with each other

and that the petitioner married P.W.1 on 09.06.2001 by tying pasupu

thadu and approached P.Ws.5 to 7 to perform their marriage. Both

petitioner and P.W.1 exchanged garlands and photographs were also

taken. Petitioner and P.W.1 lived in the house of one Suguna on rent

for a period of five months. Thereafter, petitioner started harassing

P.W.1 to bring dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and since P.W.1 expressed her

inability, petitioner necked her out of the house.

3 Basing on the complaint of P.W.1 a case was registered against

the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of

investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was taken on

file by the learned Magistrate for the above offences and numbered the

same as C.C.No.309 of 2002. The learned Magistrate framed charges

against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of Dowry Prohibition Act, read over and explained to him in vernacular

language (Telugu) for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

4 Before the trial Court, to bring home the guilt of the petitioner, on

behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 and

P.2 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced.

5 After having a thoughtful consideration to the oral, documentary

evidence and other material available on record, the learned Magistrate

arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted and

sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and also to

pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

three months. However, the petitioner was not found guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

was acquitted of the said offence.

6 Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner

preferred Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the

II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal and the same was dismissed.

Hence the present Criminal Revision Case.

7 Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri A.Venkateswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State and perused the record.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is aged about 18 years and P.W.1 was aged 34 years and

hence the marriage between them is unbelievable. P.W.1 was the wife

of one S.Prasad. She has not taken divorce form the said Prasad.

Therefore, there cannot be a valid marriage between the petitioner and

P.W.1. It is his further contention that though the petitioner and P.W.1

belong to Christian community, their evidence is that the marriage was

performed in a Hindu temple, which also goes to show that there is no

valid marriage. When marriage itself is not legal and valid, question of

harassing and demanding dowry does not arise and the ingredients of

the offence under Section 498-A IPC are not attracted.

9 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

supported the concurrent finding of the Courts below and submitted

that in view of the ample evidence available on record, interference of

this Court is not warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10 According to P.W.1, petitioner tied thali around her neck and that

sapthapathi and homam were performed. According to P.Ws.6 and 7

they performed the marriage of P.W.1 and the petitioner at Raja

Rajeswari Temple. On the other hand P.W.5, who is a member of inter

caste association, stated that he got the marriage of the petitioner and

P.W.1 performed through a priest-P.W.8. But P.W.8 stated that

petitioner and P.W.1 exchanged garlands and went away.

11 Both petitioner and P.W.1 claim to be Christians. In such

circumstances, their marriage ought to have been performed under

Special Marriage Act in a Church but not in a Hindu temple. So the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6 and 7 is inconsistent with the evidence of

P.W.8; rather contradictory to each other, which goes to show that

there is no valid marriage being performed between P.W.1 and the

petitioner. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.8 himself that he has

not performed the marriage of P.W.1 and the petitioner and that they

simply exchanged garlands and went away, an inference has to be

drawn that there is no valid marriage between P.W.1 and the petitioner.

In the absence of customary rites and ceremonies, the marriage cannot

be said to be legal and valid because the parties must have undergone

some sort of ceremonies with the object of getting married.

12 It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was wife of one S.Prasad. There

is no evidence, either oral or documentary, available on record to show

that P.W.1 took divorce from the said Prasad either customarily or

legally. Though P.Ws.3 to 7 stated that P.W.1 is a divorcee, in the

absence of any such documentary evidence, it cannot be presumed that

P.W.1 took divorce from the said Prasad.

13 In Shivcharan Lal Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 the

three Judge Bench held that for a prosecution under Section 498-A

IPC, there must be a valid marital relationship between the accused

and the victim. Therefore, only a legally wedded wife can claim the

protection under Section 498-A IPC and that in the absence of such a

legal relationship as husband and wife, there cannot be a conviction

under Section 498-A IPC. In the present case the relationship between

the petitioner and P.W.1 was only a live-in relationship.

14 For the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and

that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly the said

findings are liable to be set aside.

15 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside

the judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.97 of

2005 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Warangal, and also the judgment dated 14.09.2005 passed in

C.C.No.309 of 2002 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial

JT 2002 (2) SC 641

Magistrate of I Class, Warangal. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand

cancelled. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

Revision Case, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

Date: 07.07.2022 Kvsn