The State Of Telangana vs Madiga Prashanth And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2947 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 153 of 2020


JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning

the correctness of the finding of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum- VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally, (for short 'Magistrate') acquitting the

respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of

the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and the 1st respondent/A1 was

solemnized on 11.03.2017 as per the Hindu rites and

customs. At the time of marriage, 10 tulas of gold and

Rs.4,30,000/- cash and pulsar bike and other house hold

articles were given. Prior to marriage it was informed to P.W.1

and her parents that the said amount of Rs.4,30,000/- would

be for the purpose of setting up of 'bangle stores' business.

After the marriage, the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 allegedly

sold her gold ornaments and also used the money of

Rs.4,30,000/- for the purpose of clearing their debts.

Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 started harassing

P.W.1 mentally and physically for the purpose of getting more

dowry in order to clear their debts. In the said process, the

respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 beat P.W.1 and also abused her

in filthy language and threatened her not to inform the same

to her parents. However, unable to bear the harassment of the

respondents/A1 to A4, P.W.1 filed complaint dated

10.02.2018, which was registered as Cr.No.142 of 2018 for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 4

& 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents 1 to

4/A1 to A4.

3. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate under the said

penal provisions after final report was filed and charges were

framed accordingly.

4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked

Exs.P1 and P2. The learned Magistrate, having found that no

case is made out against the respondents/Accused, acquitted

them of the said charges.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that it is

evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that the money of

Rs.4,30,000/- was taken at the time of marriage and also gold

given was used for the purpose of clearing the debts of the

respondents/Accused and thereafter, they started harassing

for additional dowry of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Complaint came to be

filed when P.W.1 was necked out from their house for the

reason of not getting additional dowry.

6. The learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence has

found on adjudication; i) P.Ws.2 to 4 have denied anything

about any demand of additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs; ii)

P.W.1 during her chief examination has completely stated a

different version regarding the case and the entire chief

examination was complete omission, which was never stated

before the Police in the statement recorded on 10.02.2018; iii)

As seen from the evidence of P.w.1 vis-à-vis; the other evidence

of P.Ws.2 to 4, there are contradictions, for which reason, the

learned Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the

respondents/A1 to A4.

7. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1 has totally

given a different version during her chief examination and

does not tally with the controversy stated before the Police at

the first instance regarding dowry and also harassment. All

the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 did not state anything about

demand of additional dowry and for the said reason, it cannot

be said that finding of the learned Magistrate needs to be

interfered with in the background of contradicting evidence

and coming up with a new case during the course of

proceedings before the Court in chief examination. No

relevance can be placed upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 to

reverse the order of acquittal. For the aforesaid reasons, no

case is made out by the State to interfere with the reasoning

and grounds mentioned by the learned Magistrate while

recording acquittal.

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.

9. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court wherein the appellate court has to be conscious and

interfere only under compelling circumstances while reversing

an order of acquittal. Taking note of the said observations of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are no grounds, in the

present case, to interfere with the finding of the Magistrate.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

10. For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal filed by the State is

dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.6.2022 tk/kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.153 OF 2020

Date:21.06.2022

tk/kvs