Telangana High Court
Bodinepu Anjilaiah vs The State Of A.P., on 12 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.299 of 2014
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali learned counsel representing the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.
2 This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, is
filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.02.2014 passed in
Crl.A.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, wherein
and whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was
dismissed confirming the judgment dated 30.03.2010 passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, in S.C.No.121 of 2008,
was confirmed.
3 The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner being
the husband of one Chennamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally over
petty issues having developed illegal intimacy with another woman.
Unable to bear with such harassment, Chennamma committed suicide
by hanging herself to a tree in the fields of the petitioner. In that
connection a case under Section 498-A and 306 IPC was registered and
investigated into and after completion of investigation the police laid
charge sheet against all the accused for the said offences.
4 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8
and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 to 3. Basing on the oral and
documentary evidence, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated
30.3.2010, found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections
498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay
fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The
petitioner was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC.
5 Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2010 on the file of the
Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at Vikarabad, who by judgment dated 06.02.2014, dismissed
the said appeal confirming the findings as well as the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. As stated supra,
aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned appellate Court, the
petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case.
6 Sri Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the evidence of the de facto complainant, who is the
mother of the deceased, does not disclose any abatement or instigation
on the part of the revision petitioner so as to drive the deceased to
commit suicide. P.Ws.1 and 2, on whose evidence the courts below
have heavily relied upon, are not eyewitnesses to the alleged illegal
intimacy of the petitioner with some other woman and apart from that
the prosecution failed to prove the same. He further submitted that
P.Ws.3 to 7 who were cited as independent witnesses by the
prosecution, have not supported the case of the prosecution. In the
light of the above facts and circumstances, the courts below have erred
in convicting the petitioner for the charged offences and prayed to
acquit the petitioner from the charges. In support of his contentions,
the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in
P.Praveen Kumar, Hyderabad v. State of Telangana 1.
7 On the other hand, Sri Vizarath Ali learned counsel representing
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that both the courts
have concurrently found the accused guilty of the offence under
Section 306 and 498-A of IPC and the said findings are based on sound
reasoning as well as appreciation of facts and application of principles
of law in right perspective. Therefore, such findings need not be
2023 (2) ALT (Crl.)61 (T.S.)
interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 Cr.P.C.
8 The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are mother, sister-in-law and
brother of the deceased is identical on the aspect of the harassment
meted out by the petitioner towards the deceased. In unequivocal
terms all the three witnesses stated that the after ten to twelve years
after the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner and having
begotten three children, the petitioner, having developed illegal
intimacy with another woman, used to ill-treat and harass her and at
some times he used to drop the deceased at their house. After keeping
and consoling her for some days, they used to take back the deceased
to her matrimonial home again and advised the petitioner to mend his
attitude and live happily with the deceased. But the petitioner did not
heed to their words and advice. Having vexed with the attitude of the
petitioner, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a
tamarind tree in their fields.
9 The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is unimpeachable. Though there are
some minor contradictions are there, they do not go to the root of the
matter. Though P.Ws.4 to 7 did not support the case of the
prosecution, their hostile evidence does not shake the case of the
prosecution on material aspects. Though the defence took a plea that
the death of the deceased was not due to the harassment meted out by
the petitioner, but it was due to the unbearable stomach ache with
which the deceased was suffering. However, to substantiate such a
defence, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that the
deceased was suffering with stomach ache or with any other ailment
which drove her to commit suicide. Hence such defence cannot be
countenanced. No contra evidence is adduced to attribute any ill-will or
motive on the part of PWs.1 to 3 to depose against the petitioner.
10 It is the predominant contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal intimacy of the
petitioner with another woman. May be it is true, but it is highly
impossible for any one to prove such an intimacy between a man and
woman. It should be perceived through circumstances only. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is cogent, convincing and trustworthy with
regard to the circumstances which drove the deceased to commit
suicide.
11 The facts of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in P.Praveen Kumar (1 supra) is not applicable to the
case on hand inasmuch as in the said decision, the deceased left a
suicidal note explaining the circumstances that led to her committing
suicide and that suicidal note was referred to expert for comparison
and admissibility. Here in the instant case, the facts are different.
Moreover, the case of the prosecution in the said case was harassment
for illegal demand of dowry, but here it is not.
12 Both the Courts below have meticulously examined the material
available on record in right perspective and have come to a just and
concurrent conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in my considered
opinion, the said findings do not warrant any interference from this
Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision case fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
13 So far as the sentence imprisonment is concerned, as the crime
is of the year 2008 and since for the last 16 years the revision
petitioner is roaming around the Courts and since the offence under
Sections 396 and 498-A IPC are non-bailable offences, he must have
undergone a considerable period of incarceration during the pendency
of proceedings before the trial Court as well as appellate Court. Even
in this criminal revision case also, it was only when this Court
suspended the operation of the judgment of the appellate court on
18.02.2014, the petitioner came out of the jail after 14 days of
imprisonment. Hence he should have faced lot of mental trauma and
become panic. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the
sentence of imprisonment is concerned.
14 Hence the period of sentence imposed against the revision
petitioner by both the courts below is reduced to that of the period of
imprisonment which the petitioner had already undergone. However,
the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court against the
revision petitioner is enhanced to Rs.1.00 lakh. The petitioner shall pay
the said amount within four weeks from today. In default, the
petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Upon such
deposit, the mother of the deceased / de-facto complainant is entitled
to Rs.90,000/- towards compensation.
15 Except the above modification insofar as the period of sentence
and amount of fine, this criminal revision case is dismissed in all other
aspects.
16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision
case shall also stand dismissed.
_____________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 12-07-2024
Kvsn
