State Of A.P., Rep By P.P., vs K.N. Shantaram 2 Ors,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4964 Tel

                                   1


                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1275 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The respondent 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 were tried for the

offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to one year

rigorous imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class vide

judgment in CC No.75 of 1999 dated 29.08.2000. On appeal, the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Gadwal, reversed

the finding of conviction and acquitted the respondents/accused

vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2000 dated

25.03.2005. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has

preferred the present appeal.

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

they were married on 01.02.1996. On 27.03.1999, P.W.1 went to

the police station and filed complaint stating that she was being

harassed by the respondents 1 to 3 for additional dowry. At the

time of marriage, Rs.48,000/- for purchase of eight tulas of gold

and net cash of Rs.24,000/- sister-in-law were given in addition to

Rs.50,000/- to meet the marriage expenses. P.W.1 alleged that she

was being continuously harassed physically and mentally by the

respondents and forcibly took an amount of Rs.50,000/-. When the

respondents demand of additional dowry was not met, they beat

P.W.1 and injured P.W.2-father. On the basis of the complaint, case

was registered for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

3. Learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of conviction

and recorded acquittal of the respondents on the ground that there

was no evidence apart from the evidence of P.W.1 that the

respondents were harassing her. There was never any demand

made by the respondents at any point of time directly with the

parents of P.W.1. Admittedly, all the information even according to

P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of P.W.1, information was

provided by P.W.1.

4. The 1st respondent filed OP No.9 of 1998 against his wife

P.W.1 seeking restitution of conjugal society. After the said petition

was filed by the 1st respondent, the present complaint was filed.

The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme court in the case of V.Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR

1957 SC 614] and also the judgment reported in the case of

G.K.Devarajula Naidu v. State of A.P [2004 Crl.L.J 4571], where

under similar circumstances, criminal case was filed for the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC against husband and family members,

after the husband filed for restitution of conjugal society. The Supre

Court quashed the charges.

5. In the background of the husband moving Family Court

seeking direction to his wife P.W.1 to return to her marital life,

pending such adjudication of the said application made by the

husband, P.W.1 filed criminal complaint. Admittedly, all the

allegations regarding harassment of additional dowry was at the

instance of P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3, who are parents were never

asked for any dowry directly by the respondents. In the said

background of the case, the allegations of harassment remained

uncorroborated and benefit of doubt has to be extended to the

respondents. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the

accused on the said basis.

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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

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

interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Court

to reverse the finding of acquittal of the accused.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Appeal is liable

to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1275 OF 2009

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs