The State Of A.P. vs Seshabhattar Yadagiri, Laxmi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4958 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.875 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The State filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the

acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under

Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC passed by the I Additional

Sessions Judge, Warangal vide judgment in Criminal Appeal

No.168 of 1996 dated 20.03.2004 reversing the judgment of

conviction by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Warangal in CC No.271 of 1993 dated

10.10.1996.

2. The respondent and 5 others were tried for the offences

under Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC. However, the

Magistrate found that the respondent/accused guilty for the

offence under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted

accordingly, while acquitting others.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of

P.W.1 and the respondent was performed in the year 1985

and at the time of marriage, her father/P.W.2 gave

Rs.50,000/- as dowry. After six months of marriage, the

accused started abusing her both physically and mentally

and also insisted to get her pregnancy aborted. However,

P.W.1 delivered a female child in the year 1986. Three

months after delivery, P.W.1 joined the respondent.

However, she was ill-treated continuously. When P.W.1

became pregnant in the year 1998, the respondent and her

mother forcibly administered some tablets to abort her

pregnancy. However, she went to her parents house and

started living with her parents. Again in the 8th month of

pregnancy, PW1 tried to stay with the respondent and

mother-in-law. However, the respondent sent her away.

Thereafter, on 25.03.1989, the respondent beat P.W.1

indiscriminately and she was treated at her parents house.

On 21.01.1990, P.W.1 received a postal cover, which is

Ex.P6 from the cousin brother of respondent stating that

the respondent intended to marry another woman. For the

said reason, P.W.1 filed petition for restitution of conjugal

rights in O.P.No.14 of 1990, which was allowed. However,

on 08.05.1993, the respondent married second time, for

which reason, complaint was filed and investigated.

4. The learned Magistrate found the respondent/A1 guilty

of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and acquitted the

other accused. However, the learned Sessions Judge on

appeal found that; i) the Magistrate Court did not frame

charge under Section 498-A of IPC and erred in convicting

the respondent for the said offence; ii) Father-in-law of

appellant admitted that he never witnessed any kind of

harassment or ill-treatment by the respondent; iii) Though,

it was claimed that P.W.1 was treated by Dr.Sunanda twice,

she was not examined by the prosecution; iv) Legal notice

was sent to the respondent to take back P.W.1. However,

the respondent gave a reply notice, but the said copies of

notices and reply notices were not filed by the prosecution;

v) Exs.P1 and P2 are letters allegedly written by the

respondent coercing P.W.1 to agree for the second marriage.

But the said letters were not proved to have been written by

the respondent.

5. Learned Sessions Judge has found that the allegations

of harassment was hearsay as stated by the father-P.W.2

and though P.W.1 claimed to have been treated by

Dr.Sunanda, the said Doctor was not examined and the

letters filed by the prosecution Exs.P1 and P2 alleged to

have been written by the respondent were also not proved.

Though according to PW1 and 2, there were witnesses who

have knowledge about harassment, however, said witnesses

were not examined. The documents which are notice and

reply between respondent and PW1 were not filed by the

prosecution. For the said reason of non-production of

available evidence , adverse inference has to be drawn.

Though, it is not required to seek corroboration from

independent witnesses to substantiate the offence of cruelty,

however, in the present facts and circumstances when the

witnesses specifically state about the documents being

available and also the witnesses being present, the failure to

examine such witnesses and bring the documents which are

notices on record, would lead to inference that if the said

witnesses and documents were produced, the said evidence

would have gone against the prosecution case.

6. 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

7. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to

interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned

Sessions Judge.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.875 of 2009

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs