Telangana High Court
Keshaboina Ravishanker And 2 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 29 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRL.R.C.No.1763 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
29.08.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007 on the file of the Court of
the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,
whereunder, the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment of one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/- each imposed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad, Malkajgiri upon the revision petitioners for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.290 of 2005, was confirmed.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the marriage between the
first petitioner and the de facto complainant took place on 19.06.1997 at
Hyderabad and out of their wedlock a son was borne on 10.08.1998. The
allegation of the de facto complainant is that at the time of marriage her parents
gave Rs. 2,00,000/- and 50 tolas of gold, 5 kgs silver, house hold articles and
clothes etc. Thereafter the petitioners started harassing the de facto complainant
to get additional dowry under the threat that the first petitioner would attempt
suicide and as such unable to bear the harassment, she went to her parents'
house. There also the petitioners went and assaulted the parents of the de facto
complainant, abused and threatened and subjected the de facto complainant to
cruelty.
3. It was further alleged that the Petitioner No. 1 was in illegal intimacy with
one girl name Kavitha @ Mrudula and that he used to bring her home and spend
time with her and asked his son to call the defacto complainant 'Aaya' and that
Kavita as 'Mummy'. The petitioner No.1 used to indiscriminately beat her and
that the said Kavita also tortured and asked the de-facto complainant to leave
the house. The Petitioner No.1 used to come home in drunken state and used to
force and demand her to sign on white papers to give consent for second
marriage and that the Petitioner No.1 consumed sleeping pills with a view to
threaten the de-facto complainant to leave the house. That due to increased
harassment, the de facto complainant consumed sleeping pills on 17.04.2002
and that the petitioners did not bother to take her to the hospital and that de
facto complainant telephoned to her sister and brother-in-law who admitted her
to Gandhi Hospital and got treatment. After discharge, the de facto complainant
went to her parents' house and on 19.05.2001 at about 2.00 PM, the petitioners
along with their family friends by name Krishna Reddy and one Aunty went to
the parental house to settle the dispute and instead the petitioners assaulted the
father of the de facto complainant. Unable to bear with the harassment, the de
facto complaint lodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime
No.119/2002 u/ss.498A, 323 & 506 IPC and charge sheet was filed.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got
marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On the other hand, the petitioners got examined one
Yadagiri as D.W.1, but they did not mark any documents.
5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire material available on
record, found the petitioners not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
323 and 506 IPC and acquitted them of the said offences, however found the
petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and
accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment of one
year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, by judgment dated 07.5.2007.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 92 of
2007 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. However, the learned appellate Court, by Judgment
dated 29.08.2011, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned trial Court in CC No. 290/2005. Hence the present criminal revision case.
7. During the pendency of this revision, the second petitioner died; hence
the case against the second petitioner was dismissed as abated.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the
investigating officer has done table investigation; there is no evidence to
establish that the de facto complainant consumed sleeping pills due to the
harassment meted out and also about her admission in Gandhi Hospital. Further,
except the interested evidence of relatives of the de-facto complainant, there is
no independent witness available on record in this regard. The Courts below,
without evaluating the evidence available on record and also the circumstances
against the case of the prosecution, have erroneously found the petitioners
guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. In support of their case,
the petitioners filed medical certificates of accused Nos.1 and 3 and death
certificate of accused No.2. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the petitioners relied upon the following decisions:
(1) Kahkshan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and
others 1.
(2) Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2.
(3) Satish Kumar Batra and others Vs.State of Haryana 3.
(4) Niyas Vs.The State of Kerala, represented by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Keral, Ernakulam 4
9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that both the
Courts below have meticulously and minutely scrutinized the evidence available
on record and found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC while finding them not guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and that there is no perversity in the said
findings and hence the same cannot be interfered with through this criminal
revision case.
10. In the light of the above rival submissions, this Court has gone through
the evidence available on record. PW1 herself is the de-facto complainant and
PWs.2 to 4 are her father, brother-in-law and sister. Their evidence depicted the
things prior to and after the marriage of de-facto complainant with the 1st
petitioner and also her plight at her in-laws' house due to the harassment meted
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal No.976 of 2001 of Hon'ble Supreme Court
Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2007 against CRLA No.288 of 2005
out by the petitioners. They also deposed that after consuming sleeping pills,
since her husband did not provide medical aid, they admitted the de-facto
complainant in hospital and after discharge, they took her to their house and
when they questioned the petitioners regarding the ill-treatment and harassment
meted out towards the de-facto complainant the petitioners and others beat
PWs.1 to 4. Further, it is also their evidence that the petitioners threatened and
pressurised PW1 to give consent for marriage of her husband with another girl.
PW1 alleged illicit relationship of her husband with one girl by name Kavitha.
PWs.2 to 4, though they did not witness each and every incident of harassment
meted out to PW1 at her in-laws' house, they heard the same through PW1 and
some incidents were witnessed by them.
11. Evidence of DW1, father-in-law of PW1/de-facto complainant depicts that
they treated PW1 as daughter, she herself used to leave the house without
informing anybody, PW1 behaved abnormally with her brother-in-law/PW3, PW1
used to take sleeping pills due to the sound/snoring sleep of his son, PW1 used
to quarrel with her husband demanding to put-up a separate family and that his
son filed Divorce OP No.302 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judge, Family
Court, Secunderabad, PW1 filed MC No.15 of 2005 before the said Court seeking
maintenance. However, PW1's behaviour with PW3 was brought into picture for
the first time in the evidence of DW1 in this case and there is no whisper
regarding the same anywhere in the Divorce OP.
12. The contention of the petitioners that except the interested witnesses like
PWs.1 to 4 there is no independent witness to prove the case of the prosecution
regarding the harassment meted out to PW1 cannot stand for legal scrutiny since
generally people do not want to disclose such type of incidents and quarrels
among the neighbours. Further, the petitioners/accused have every opportunity
to challenge the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 by cross-examining them but their cross-
examination did not elicit any incriminating material to doubt the veracity of their
evidence. Though PW1 contended that due to the harassment meted out by the
petitioners, she attempted suicide and got admitted in the hospital, in the
absence of any supporting oral or documentary evidence, the same cannot be
wholly believed. Further, there is no iota of evidence on record to show the
cause of PW1's admission into the hospital and the nature of treatment received
by her.
13. The above discussed facts and evidence clearly revealed the scenario of
skirmishes between the couple and parents at both ends. However, the above
evidence and circumstances did not reveal any act of voluntarily causing hurt to
PW1 or intimidating PW1 to commit suicide. In that aspect, the prosecution
failed to prove the ingredients attracting the offences punishable under Section
323 and 506 of IPC. However, the prosecution could able to prove the
ingredients of Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners with cogent and
convincing evidence. In that view of the matter, the finding of both the Courts
below cannot be termed as erroneous and the same cannot be interfered with by
this Court. The grounds urged by the petitioners have no force warranting
interference of this Court with the well reasoned and sustainable findings of both
the Courts below.
14. So far as the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners and
the fine amount awarded against them is concerned, the crime was registered in
the year 2002 and since then, the petitioners have been roaming around the
Courts and in that view of the matter this Court feels that the said mental agony
and trauma faced by the petitioners itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient
view in their favour. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to reduce the period of
imprisonment awarded to the petitioners to that of the period, which they have
already undergone.
15. So far as the fine amount is concerned, this Court is of the view that the
same may be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each.
16. In the result, except the above modification with regard to the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the petitioners and enhancement in the fine amount
imposed against them, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is
dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
Date:29-12-2023 -----------------------
Kvsn/abb E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
