Telangana High Court
K.Neeraja , Rajani, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 October, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1227 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2010 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.129 of 2009 by the learned I Additional Sessions
Judge, Warangal.
2. The appellant is the victim - de facto complainant who was
examined as PW1 before the trial Court. She is the wife of
respondent No.2 - husband. She filed a case for the offence
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
"the IPC, 1860"). According to her, she was married to
respondent No.2 on 22.02.1996 by presenting cash of
Rs.1,50,000/- and other household articles were also given.
After the marriage, she joined respondent No.2 and they lived
happily for a period of three months. Thereafter, he and other
accused started abusing and ill-treating her for additional dowry.
Respondent No.2 used to beat her frequently and send her out of
the house. Even though there was constant harassment and
humiliation, she continued living with him. On 16.12.1996, she
gave birth to a female child, for which reason, respondent No.2
and all the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in the
name of the child. Thereafter, a divorce O.P. was filed by
respondent No.2 and he also married again. However, the said
divorce O.P. was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the
husband. Thereafter, the husband sent some antisocial elements
and threatened PW1 and her family members. Aggrieved by the
same, she lodged a complaint which was registered by the police
and charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The learned Magistrate having considered the evidence of
PW1 and other witnesses convicted respondent No.2 and
acquitted the other three accused who were tried. The husband
appealed before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge,
reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.
The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, Para No.9
would be relevant:
"9. She made significant developments in her case in so far as
she being beaten by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband;
vacating the house at Hyderabad; informing harassment to the
elders; demand of Rs.50,000/- through elders after the birth of
the daughter; she allegedly seeing all the accused in the kitchen
room talking to each other contemplating to kill her by pouring
kerosene over her and finding a kerosene tin and thereby she
starting to weep apprehending that all the accused would kill her
etc. Similarly PWs 2 & 3 also made significant improvements in
their evidence. The developments in evidence made by PWs 1 to 3
were duly brought on record by the accused. But, the lower
Court brushed aside them observing that they are bound to occur
even in genuine cases. But, these allegations are regarding acts
of serious nature and their omission cannot be easily ignored in
evaluating evidence of prosecution witnesses in this case. She
has never complained them before, either by filing a complainant
with the police or mentioning them in any other previous cases
(or petition/counter, as she admitted in the cross examination)
between the appellant and his wife. There was no reference to
them from 1996 till the evidence was recorded in 2005 when, for
the first time, these wild allegations were made".
4. The learned Sessions Judge found that the allegations
leveled before the Court which were serious in nature were all
improvements made during trial after nine years of the complaint
made. Apart from the said, she has also made allegations
regarding the second marriage of respondent No.2 and also he
having a child from the second marriage.
5. The only evidence is that of PW1 regarding the harassment
made. The said allegation has to be viewed by the Court and
seek corroboration if necessary in the said circumstances. When
the allegations which are serious and are improvements made for
the first time during Court proceedings, the said improvements
cannot be considered unless there is convincing corroboration
from the other evidence.
6. Since there is no such corroboration for the improvements
made, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly reversed the
conviction and acquitted respondent No.2.
7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has
to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a
possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been
analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the
appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of
the trial court rendering acquittal.
8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the
settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in
reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate
Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of
Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's
acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for
doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have
"very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's
decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably
wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of
justice";
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material
evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report
of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to
conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find
any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge while reversing the conviction and
acquitting respondent No.2.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall
stands closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date: 28.10.2024
ns
