Ramesh Naik vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 579 Tel

                                       1
                                                                          Dr.GRR, J
                                                                   crlrc_1033_2016

          THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1033 of 2016



ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner - appellant - A1

aggrieved by the Order of the Judge, Family Court cum VIII Additional

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2014 dated

06.04.2016 confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kodangal in C.C.No.23 of 2010, dated 17.04.2014.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the complainant - victim

lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodangal,

stating that her marriage was performed with A1, Ramesh Naik at her parents'

house at Ureniki Thanda. At the time of marriage, on demand, the parents of

the complainant gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and presented 5

tulas of ornaments and domestic articles worth of Rs.30,000/- and spent

marriage expenses of Rs.20,000/-. After marriage, the complainant joined A1.

Since then, A1 to A4, the husband, the in-laws and the brother-in-law of the

complainant used to harass the complainant for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-

and for her inability to meet the said demand, they used to beat and abuse her.

Further, the accused persons also harassed her on account of not able to

conceive children and forced the complainant to give consent for second

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

marriage with A5. Several panchayats were held in the said regard. The

parents of the complainant tried to convince A1 to A4, but they refused to heed

to their request and necked her out of the matrimonial home on 10.03.2009. On

18.03.2009, A1 contracted second marriage with A5, daughter of A7, resident

of Kandanelli Thanda. A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 assisted A1 in performing the

second marriage. On 21.04.2009, when the complainant visited the house of

A1, she found A5 living along with A1 as his wife at the said house. A1 to A5

did not allow her to enter the house. They beat her and threatened to kill her.

On 01.06.2009, the parents of the complainant held a panchayat and invited all

the accused for settlement, but A1 to A8 refused to take back the complainant

along with them. Though the complainant filed a report before PS, Bomraspet,

as no action was taken by them, she filed the private complainant on

20.07.2009. The court referred the said complaint to Police, Bomraspet for

investigation and the SI of Police, PS Bomraspet registered a case vide Crime

No.63 of 2009 under Sections 498-A, 494 read with Section 109 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short "DP" Act). On

investigation, he filed charge-sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 494 read with Section 109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP

Act. The names of A6 to A8 were deleted from the charge-sheet reporting that

no offence was established against them.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

3. The court took cognizance of the above offences against A1 to A5 and

framed charges against A1 to A4 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The court also framed a charge under Section

494 of IPC against A1 and a charge under Section 494 read with Section 109 of

IPC against A2 to A5.

4. The Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

5. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. A portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 was marked as Ex.D.1 on

behalf of the accused.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial

court convicted A1 alone for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence and in default of payment of fine

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the fine

amount of Rs.10,000/-, an amount of Rs.8,000/- was directed to be paid to the

complainant. A1 was acquitted for the offences under Section 494 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and A2 and A5 were acquitted for the offences

under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded against him, A1

preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and vide Criminal Appeal No.

43 of 2014 dated 06.04.2016, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction

and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodangal against A1

for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC in C.C.No.23 of 2010 dated

17.10.2014.

9. Aggrieved further, A1 preferred this revision contending that when all the

other accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC, the courts below committed error in not giving the same benefit to the

petitioner. The complainant made omnibus allegations without specific

instances and dates of harassment. The courts went wrong in not applying the

same principle to the petitioner and convicting him just because he was the

husband of the de-facto complainant. The court committed an error in

considering the offer given by the petitioner for settlement of the matter as

harassment. There was no cogent evidence on record for convicting the

petitioner. The courts below recorded their findings basing on assumptions and

presumptions and prayed to set aside the orders of the courts below.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there were

several contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, while PW.1 stated that she

lived happily with A1 for a period of six (06) months, PW.2 stated that the

complainant and A1 lived happily for a period of six (06) years after their

marriage, which were contradictory to each other. There were also

contradictions in the evidence of witnesses as to where panchayats were

conducted. No specific instance of harassment was stated by the witnesses. No

neighbours at the matrimonial home of PW.1 were examined by the

investigating officer. LW.4, Chandra Naik, the panchayat elder was not

examined and relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in

Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka and Another1, wherein it was

held that:

"46. Both the trial court and the Sessions Judge's court appears to have carried away with the self-serving testimony of the complainant by ignoring the fact that all those statements of not only the complainant, but, also of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, remained very bald, vague, without any clear details of the alleged several incidents. The trial court also did not notice the fact that, even according to PW.1, if she was unable to contact her family members and could only communicate with her younger sister Susheela through e-mails, then the competent witness to speak about those details was said Susheela, who for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was not examined. Further, even the e-mails from Exs.P.5 to P.19 also, an analysed above, could not able to show that the acts alleged therein would attract cruelty as mentioned in Section 498-A of IPC. Thus, the impugned judgments warrants interference and the prosecution case would not sustain."

2022 Crl. L.J.3939

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended

that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is cogent and consistent with each other. The

trial court and the lower appellate court, on considering the evidence only,

recorded the conviction against A1 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

The said findings need not be disturbed by this Court in the revision and prayed

to dismiss the revision.

13. Perused the record.

14. Before proceeding to discuss the facts of the case, it is considered

necessary to understand the scope of revision. Section 397 of Cr.P.C., gives the

High Courts or the Sessions Court jurisdiction to consider the correctness,

legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of

the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while

considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion,

normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence

of the case. The court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself

about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains

from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of the

evidence.

15. By keeping these principles in mind, when the judgments of the courts

below are observed, the trial court on an analysis of evidence of PWs.1 to 3,

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

opined that PW.1 stated in her evidence that after six (06) months of marriage,

all the accused started harassing her for want of additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-

and on failure to pay such amount, they beat her and necked her out from the

house, several panchayats were held in the said regard. After conducting

panchayats, the accused had taken her back but they used to taunt and abuse her

for not giving birth to children and beat her to give consent for the second

marriage of A1 with A5 Susheela Bai and necked her out of the house. She

stated that about 3 panchayats were held at Juntupalli Village and 2 at

Wadicherla Village.

16. The trial court on observing the evidence of PW.2, recorded that his

evidence with regard to the marriage expenses and worth of household articles

was not corroborating with PW.1 as he deposed that he had spent an amount of

Rs.20,000/- for marriage expenses and gave articles worth of Rs.30,000/- and

that it did not reveal any demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. PW.2

stated that A1 necked his daughter out of the house and married another lady at

Kandanelli Thanda and that he conducted a panchayat at Yalal Mandal and

recorded that conducting of panchayat at Yalal was elicited as an omission in

the evidence of PW.2.

17. The trial court also observed that the evidence of PW.3, who was a

relative of PWs 1 and 2, who participated in the panchayat was corroborating

with their evidence, PW.3 stated that a panchayat was held before caste elders at

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

Ureniki Thanda, Wadicherla Village and elders suggested to the accused, to take

care of PW.1 and sent her back. For some days, the accused took good care of

PW.1 but again started harassing PW.1 for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-.

After sending PW.1 out, A1 contracted second marriage with one Susheela Bai.

18. Thus, the trial court observing that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was

consistent with regard to the accused harassing PW.1 and was beating her for

want of Rs.20,000/- and forcing her to give consent for second marriage of A1,

held that, the prosecution proved the case against A1 for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC. The trial court relied upon the judgment of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in Thota Sambasiva Rao and Others v. State of

Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it was held that:

"Harassment need not always be in the form of physical assault, even mental harassment would also come within purview of Section 498-A. Such harassment, when meted out with a view to coerce complainant to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand, amounts to cruelty. Conduct of husband in having illicit intimacy with another woman, deserting wife demanding her to bring additional dowry or asking her to agree for divorce in the event of her failure to meet such demand would constitute acts of ill treatment and harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A."

19. The trial court rightly pointed out that in the matters of family disputes,

obviously the evidence available would be of family members and by not

examining any other independent witnesses, the case of the prosecution could

not be thrown out, based its conclusions on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3.

2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 948 (AP)

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

20. However, considering that as the prosecution failed to file any

photographs or temple receipts and PW.4, the investigating officer had not

examined any purohit for the second marriage between A1 and A5, observed

that the offence under Section 494 of IPC was not established and abetment of

such offence by others was also not proved. As there were no specific

allegations against A2 to A4 for the allegations of harassment by them, the trial

court acquitted A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. As the

prosecution also failed to adduce any documentary evidence in proof of

payment of dowry and there were inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 and

2 with regard to the payment of dowry, the trial court also acquitted all the

accused persons for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

21. The lower appellate court on re-appreciating the evidence, observed that

the contradiction marked as Ex.D.1 in the evidence of PW.2 to the effect that he

stated about PW.1 and A1 living together happily for six (06) years and PW.1

stating that they lived happily for six (06) months was not a material

contradiction. The lower appellate court observed that the evidence of PW.3

corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the harassment by A1 for

additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and necking her out of the house, due to which,

a panchayat was conducted by them and after panchayat, PW.1 joined A1 and

there was again harassment. The lower appellate court also observed that since

PWs. 2 and 3 were the relatives and interested witnesses, their evidence could

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

not be discarded. Non-examination of any other independent witnesses would

not affect the prosecution case, as the relatives were only the best witnesses to

speak the real facts. It was also observed that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was

corroborating with each other with regard to A1 subjecting PW.1 to cruelty for

not begetting the children and forcing her to give consent for the second

marriage of A1, which would be nothing but cruelty, attracting the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC.

22. Thus, both the trial court and the lower appellate court observed that the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was cogent, consistent and trustworthy with regard to

the harassment of PW.1 by A1 and as such found him guilty for the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC.

23. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the

observations of the courts below for setting aside the same. The contradictions

pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as to where the

panchayats were conducted or as to the length of the period for which the PW.1

and A1 lived happily were not material to disbelieve their evidence. There need

not be any specific instance of harassment, as the harassment in the marital life

would be continuous.

24. Hence, this Court does not find any reasons to set aside the judgment of the

courts below.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_1033_2016

25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

orders of the Judge, Family Court - cum - VIII Additional Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar in Crl.Appeal No.43 of 2014 dated 06.04.2016. The sentence

recorded by the trial court also appears to be appropriate and commensurate

with the offence committed by A1. As such, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the same also.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J

06th February, 2023.

nsk.