The State Of A.P., vs Anneparthy Nagaiah,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3708 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1462 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

1. The respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are Accused Nos.1 to 3,

5 and 6 in CC No.320 of 2004 registered for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Suryapet (for short 'learned Magistrate') acquitted the

respondents/accused by order dated 31.01.2007. Aggrieved

by the same, State has preferred the present appeal.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage of A1

took place with P.W.1 nine years prior to the complaint EXP1

dated 31.03.2004. Net cash of Rss.50,000/- and other

presents were also given to her. The accused started

harassing P.W.1 for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. When

the parents of P.W.1 expressed their inability to pay any

additional dowry, A5 and A6 poured kerosene on P.W.1 and

then P.W.1 ran to the house of her parents. P.W.1 was also

admitted into hospital and gave birth to male child. But

accused did not visit P.W.1 in the hospital. Unable to bear the

harassment by the accused, P.W.1 filed complaint under

Ex.P1.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have stated in clear terms that the

dowry was given at the time of marriage and also spoke about

additional dowry demand made by the accused herein for

which reason, the accused are liable to be convicted under

Section 498-A of IPC and further the learned Magistrate failed

to appreciate the evidence on record and mechanically

acquitted the accused/respondents herein, though all the

ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC were out.

4. Learned Magistrate having discussed the evidence found

that there was no consistency among the witnesses regarding

demand of additional dowry. P.W.1 stated that Rs.50,000/-

demand was made, whereas P.Ws.2 to 4 stated that additional

dowry of Rs.30,000/- was demanded, whereas P.W.5 stated

that Rs.40,000/- was demanded. Further, except stating that

the accused/respondents herein have harassed her mentally

and physically, there are no specific instances as to when

P.W.1 was subjected to any kind of harassment. The witnesses

are closely related. P.Ws.6 to 9 did not support the case of the

prosecution.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian

criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental

protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.

Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and

secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.

Both these facets attain even greater significance where the

accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment

of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the

accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

6. As seen from the evidence on record, there are several

inconsistencies regarding demand of additional dowry and

absolutely there are no specific instances alleging any kind of

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

harassment as to how the accused/respondents have acted,

which amounted to cruelty. Except stating that all the

accused have harassed for additional dowry, there is no

consistency in the version of P.Ws.2 to 5, who are close

relatives and interested witnesses. In the said circumstances,

when the State failed to show any convincing reasons to

interfere with the judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that

reasoning given by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered

with in a mechanical manner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the State is

dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1462 OF 2010

Date: 14.07.2022.

kvs