Telangana High Court
T.Vijaya Kumari vs The State Of A.P. Rep.By P.P. And Another on 12 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 OF 2009
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set
aside the judgment dated 12.01.2009 in S.C.No.26 of 2007 on the
file of the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs
(POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad (for
short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Ms. S. Madhavi, learned counsel representing
Mr. Laxman Batchu, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1 State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 married each other. It is stated that the
petitioner was 'mala' by caste and respondent No.2 was
'ayyavarlu'. After marriage, respondent No.2 harassed the
petitioner for want of additional dowry. But the petitioner could
not get the same. The petitioner submitted that she underwent
abortions on two occasions due to the acts of respondent No.2
but he failed to take care of her. He developed illicit intimacy with
another woman and neglecter her. When the petitioner
questioned him about the same, respondent No.2 beat her and
abused her in the name of her caste.
4. Unable to bear such harassment the petitioner filed a
complaint before the then Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad.
Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. The
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989. Upon careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found respondent No.2 not guilty of the alleged offences and
acquitted him. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1,
P2, P4 to P7 in proper perspective and erroneously acquitted
respondent No.2 for the alleged offences vide impugned judgment
and he seeks to set aside the same.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the
trial Court after careful scrutiny of the material on record rightly
passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court
is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.
7. The trial Court on behalf of prosecution examined PWs.1 to
11 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 and 2. On behalf of the
defence, Exs.D1 to D4 were examined and no document was
marked. On careful consideration of the material on record, the
trial Court observed that PW1 neither filed the medical reports
pertaining to her second pregnancy and abortion in the Court nor
gave them to the police. This shows that there was inconsistency
in the statement of PW1 with regard to the second pregnancy.
8. The trial Court further observed that there were
inconsistencies in the statements of PWs.1, 2 and 6 and MO2
and the same does not establish that the accused had illicit
intimacy with another woman. In the present case it was found
that the alleged demand for money was not made prior to the
marriage but four months after the alleged marriage. It is an
undisputed fact that PW1 or her parents or brother did not pay
any money to the accused towards dowry at the time of marriage.
So, respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for the offences alleged
under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. The trial Court, by following the ratio laid down by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A. Nagamani Vs.
Government of A.P. & Others 1 held that PW1 after her marriage
with her husband acquired 'Ayyavarlu' caste. So, the petitioner
cannot claim that she belonged to scheduled caste by the date of
the alleged offence. In E. Tirupen Reddy Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Nandyal, Kurnool District and
others 2, the Hon'ble High Court held that the offence alleged
under SC, ST (POA) Act must take place at public place and in
public view. Even if it is assumed that respondent No.2 abused
PW1 in the name of her caste, it took place only in his house but
not in a public place. But in the cross examination PW1 herself
admitted that in Ex D1 complaint she failed to state that
respondent No.2 abused her in the name of caste. Thus, the trial
Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that
respondent No.2 insulted PW1 by abusing her in the name of her
caste.
10. In the present case on hand, the trial Court found that
there were serious omissions and contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses. During investigation, no medical
record pertaining to the abortions undergone by PW1 was
collected. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
LC 2008 (9) AP 580
2006 (2) ALT 366 (DB)
respondent No.2 for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt
and thereby acquitted him, which finding, in my considered view,
does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
11. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere
with the well considered judgment of the trial Court and
accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date:12.02.2024
ESP
