Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Pusala Jayaram, on 15 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.553 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1
to 3/A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B
IPC vide judgment in SC No.121 of 2004 dated 08.08.2008
passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC)
Kothagudem (for short 'the learned Assistant Sessions Judge')
preferred the present appeal.
2. The respondents/accused were tried for the offence
under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge and they were found not guilty for the
aforesaid offences
3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the father of
the deceased. The deceased was married to the 1st respondent
2 ½ years prior to the alleged incident. At the time of marriage,
P.W.1 gave dowry of Rs.71,000/- and other house hold
articles, one watch to the 1st respondent. The deceased lead
happy married life for one year and thereafter, became
pregnant. The respondents started harassing the deceased for
additional dowry and were beating her. The harassment was
informed by the deceased daughter stating that the
respondents were harassing her and beating her. P.W.1
requested to take her back and also agreed to pay Rs.10,000/-
additional dowry and one tula gold. P.W.1 left the deceased at
her matrimonial house and thereafter, after coming back from
the house, he received phone call stating that the deceased
consumed acid. She was taken to the hospital, but she died on
the same day at 4.00 a.m. Accordingly, Ex.P1 complaint was
given by the father/P.W.1.
4. P.W.2 is the mother, P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbours who
supported the version of P.W.1 stating that dowry was given
and also that the deceased informed about the harassment by
the respondents herein.
5. Sri Sudarshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that though there was consistent evidence regarding
harassment by the respondents, the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the respondents, without
giving proper reasons. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,
who are parents and independent witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 is
consistent regarding the harassment, the acquittal has to be
reversed and the respondents have to be convicted for the
offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the
respondents for the following grounds; i) There is any amount
of discrepancy among the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the
dowry being paid; ii) even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, there
was never any direct demand by the respondents; iii) The only
source for alleging that the respondents have harassed is the
information given by the deceased and there is no other
independent evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of G.M.Ravi @
G.Purushotham v.State of A.P1, wherein it is held as follows:
"6. All the witnesses in the present case, who have deposed,
have only stated what according to them was told by the
deceased to them with respect to the harassment meted out to
her by her husband. None of these statements comes within
the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, these
2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 344 (AP)
statements in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court
referred to above, are not at all admissible in evidence. There
is not a single witness who has stated that he/she had
personal knowledge of the harassment of the deceased by the
appellant. Even the father of the deceased, who stated that the
accused had demanded Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of filing
an appeal in the High Court, did not state that a demand for
money was made to him by the accused. He stated that the
demand was made on telephone by his own daughter, the
deceased. According to him, the accused had asked his wife,
that is the deceased, to demand money from him. Again this
evidence is not admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence
Act. Therefore, conviction under Section 498-A, IPC also
cannot sustain and is set aside."
8. As seen from the present case, the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents counsel is apt for
the reason of the allegation of harassment in the present case
is also informed by the deceased and none of the witnesses
P.Ws.1 to 4 had spoken that they have direct knowledge
about such harassment.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 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
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
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.
10. For the foregoing discussion, the State has failed to
convince that there are any grounds to interfere with the order
of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall
stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.553 OF 2010
Date: 15.07.2022.
kvs
