Machannagori Srinivasa Reddy., 2 ... vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3800 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1214 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants were acquitted by Trial Court. However on

appeal by the state, the appellants 1 to 3 were convicted for the

offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six

months, each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each and they also

convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of three years

each for the offence under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

by reversing, vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2007,

dated 23.09.2008. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 who is the wife of A1

filed a complaint on 12.07.2005 stating that her marriage with the

1st appellant was performed on 08.12.2002 and at the time of

marriage, cash of Rs.6,30,000/-, 35 tulas of gold, clothes worth

Rs.80,000/-, steel utensils worth Rs.25,000/-, furniture worth

Rs.45,000/- were given as dowry. After few days of the marriage,

the appellants herein and the other acquitted accused A4 to A8

harassed for additional dowry. She was blessed with one daughter,

however, the harassment for additional dowry did not stop. The

elders tried to settle the issue but the appellants did not heed to

their advice.

3. After completion of the investigation on the basis of complaint

EXP1, the charge sheet was filed against A1 to A8. The trial court

i.e., Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, after

completion of trial found A1 to A8 not guilty for the offences under

Section 498-A IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned

Magistrate relied upon the document Ex.D1, which is a letter of

mutual understanding dated 20.07.2005. In the said letter, there

was no mention of any demand for additional dowry or harassment

by any of the accused. It only states that there were

misunderstandings amongst the parties, as such, P.W.1 stayed at

her parents' house for about 13 months. Since there was no

reference to any kind of harassment in the said letter, the learned

Magistrate found the defence of the appellants that P.W.1 was

insisting on setting up a separate family for which reason

differences arose was believed.

4. The State filed Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2007 before the

Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the learned

Sessions Judge having discussed the allegations made by the

witnesses found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence under Sections

498-A and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The main ground on which the learned Sessions Judge

reversed the order of acquittal is Ex.D1.

6. The learned Sessions Judge found that Ex.D1 itself would go

to show that there were misunderstandings between the appellants

and P.W.1, as such Ex.D1 cannot come to the rescue of the

appellants to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 regarding dowry

harassment. However, for the reason of A4 to A8 residing at

different places, learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit of

doubt to A4 to A8 and did not interfere in the order of acquittal.

7. The entire case rests upon Ex.D1. The learned Magistrate

found that there are no averments in Ex.D1 which give information

regarding any kind of harassment. However, the learned Sessions

Judge found that mentioning of the misunderstandings in EXD1

itself would reflect that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty by A1 to A3,

who are the appellants herein.

8. 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.

8. When two views are possible, the view which is favourable to

the accused has to be considered and more so, in a case of

acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in the finding of the

trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.

9. It is the case of the appellants that P.W.1 was not willing to

stay in a joint household and wanted a separate family to be set up.

As seen from the understanding Ex.D1 it is mentioned that there

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

were misunderstandings between both the parties and they

intended to unite. In the absence of any facts mentioned leading to

misunderstandings, the word "misunderstandings" cannot be

attributed to any kind of harassment by the accused. The

misunderstandings would mean that there were differences on

issues in between the accused and P.W.1. Drawing an inference

that misunderstandings amounted to harassment of P.W.1 as

inferred by the learned Sessions Judge is totally incorrect. In fact

the word misunderstandings mentioned in Ex.D1 also lend

credibility to the defence of the appellants that those differences

arose on account of P.W.1 setting up of a separate family.

10. In the said circumstances, when the findings of the learned

Magistrate are based on logical and reasonable conclusions, the

learned Sessions Judge interfering with the order of acquittal by

interpreting Ex.D1 in his own way is unwarranted. The said

interpretation by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be accepted as

the finding and interpretation on the basis of Ex.D1 as arrived at by

the learned Magistrate is also probable and reasonable.

11. Accordingly the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2007 dated

23.09.2008 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted for the

charges under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

12. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel thereto,

miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1214 of 2008

Date: 21.07.2022.

Kvs