Madishetty.Prathap vs Adapa.Srinivas And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1104 Tel

Telangana High Court

Madishetty.Prathap vs Adapa.Srinivas And 4 Others on 20 January, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.730 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T:

The Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-father of the

victim questioning the Judgment dated 29.04.2011 in Criminal

appeal No.116 of 2010 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned

judgment') passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at

Adilabad, wherein the Judgment dated 27.11.2010 passed by the

learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Mancherial, Adilabad District in C.C.No.4656 of 2005 convicting

the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code (for short "IPC") was set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are

referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:

a) The victim/de-facto complainant by name Adapa Divya

lodged complaint with Police, Mancherial against accused Nos.1

to 3 alleging that her marriage was performed with accused No.1

at Mantheni on 25.05.2003 and at the time of marriage her

father (appellant herein) gave Rs.1,80,000/- for gold,

Rs.1,00,000/- for depositing in bank, one Hero Honda

motorcycle, silver articles and household articles to accused No.1 MGP,J

towards dowry. It was alleged that after the marriage, her

husband harassed her alleging that victim has committed theft of

gold bracelet and cash from the possession of Accused No.1.

Accused No.2 i.e., mother of accused No.1 alleged to have

converted the bed room of the victim and accused No.1 as a

common room. It was further alleged that accused No.1 used to

beat the victim by demanding additional dowry and that the

accused did not even provide sufficient food to her when she was

pregnant. It was further alleged that when the father of the

victim came to the house of accused, the victim informed her

father about the alleged harassment but after the father has left

the house, the accused No.2 burnt the hand of the victim. The

accused have driven away the victim from her marital home on

10.02.2004 and some pamphlets were distributed with false

allegations to lower the dignity of victim and her parents.

Accused No.1 alleged to have sent legal notice to the victim with

false allegations. However, on 19.06.2005 the uncles of accused

No.1 brought the victim to Mancherial after giving an

undertaking that her husband and in laws will not harass her

and thereby they used to reside in a rented house. But accused

No.1 continued his harassment under the influence of her in-

laws by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs.

MGP,J

b) Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.266/2005

was registered by Mancherial Police Station for the offence under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, charge

sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 3.

c) The trial Court took cognizance of the offence against

accused Nos.1 to 3, framed charges for the offence under

Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the accused denied the charge

and pleaded not guilty.

d) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1

to 12 got marked Exs.P1 to P15. After closure of prosecution

evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating

circumstances deposed by the prosecution witnesses and the

same was denied by accused Nos.1 to 3.

e) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty for the offence

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but found accused

Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the MGP,J

Indian Penal Code and thereby convicted them to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year each and pay Rs.1,000/-

each.

f) Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the

accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred Appeal before the learned I

Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide CRLA No.116/2010,

wherein conviction judgment dated 27.11.2010 passed by the

trial court in CC No.4656/0005 was set aside and as a result the

accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the

Code of Code of Criminal Procedure.

g) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.04.2011 passed by the

learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal appeal

No.116/2010, the father of the victim has preferred the present

Appeal to set aside the judgment dated 29.04.2011 passed by the

learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal appeal

No.116/2010 and confirm the Judgment dated 27.11.2010

passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class

at Mancherial, Adilabad District in C.C.No.4656 of 2005.

4. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned Counsel for the

appellant-father of the victim and Sri Dr. Surepalli Prashanth, MGP,J

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and

perused the record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

unable to bear with the harassment of the accused, the victim

after filing the complaint, committed suicide. As per Ex.P2, the

victim died on 26.08.2006. Thus, securing the presence of victim

for recording her evidence was not possible. On behalf of the

victim, the prosecution examined the father of the victim as PW1,

who deposed in tune with the averments of the complaint lodged

by the victim to the police.

6. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in the

impugned judgment observed that the report given by Adapa

Divya (victim) to the police was not exhibited or marked in this

case and that when the report or complaint is not exhibited or

marked and when no omission or contradictions are elicited from

that, the learned Magistrate ought not to have touched the

contents of that complaint. But a careful perusal of the

judgment passed by the trial court, it is amply evident that the

complaint lodged by the victim was marked as Ex.P16 through

the evidence of PW7 the investigating officer. Thus, the above MGP,J

observations made by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,

Adilabad are untenable.

7. Now the question that needs to be answered at this

juncture is whether the contents of Ex.P16 were established by

the prosecution through the evidence of other witnesses. A

perusal of Ex.P16, which consists of 9 pages, discloses that the

victim has made several allegations against as many as nine

persons i.e., not only against the accused Nos.1 to 3 but also

against other members related to accused. But the Police have

registered the complaint only against the husband of the victim

and his parents. In Ex.P16 the victim alleged that when she was

carrying fifth month pregnancy, she informed about the

harassment meted by her in the hands of accused to her father,

who came to the house of the accused. Whereas PW1 i.e., father

of the victim deposed that two months after the marriage, his

daughter informed him that the accused were harassing her.

The victim alleged in Ex.P16 that she along with her husband

lived happily for few months after their marriage. PW1 admitted

in his cross examination that his daughter returned to his home

along with accused No.1 for three or four times after their

marriage and by that time there were no disputes between the

couple. Thus, there is veracity in the statements of PW1 and the MGP,J

victim so far as the time of beginning of alleged harassment of

accused on the victim.

8. As per Ex.P16, it is the specific version of the victim that

the accused used to harass the victim to bring additional dowry

of Rs.5 lakhs. However, as per the evidence of PW1, the accused

alleged to have harassed the victim for additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, there is also veracity in the version of PW1

and his daughter with regard to quantum of additional dowry

that was alleged to have been demanded by the accused.

9. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that his daughter

gave delivery to a male child at Peddapalli Hospital and at that

time the accused came there and stayed there for some days.

But as per Ex.P16, the victim averred that the accused came to

the hospital to see her son and went away.

10. One of the allegations leveled against the accused is that

the accused have necked out the victim from their house. In the

chief examination, PW1 deposed that on 19.06.2005 the accused

driven away his daughter the house of accused and again he

deposed that the accused necked out his daughter on

20.05.2007. On the other hand, as per Ex.P16, the victim

alleged that on 10.02.2004 the accused forcibly sent her in their MGP,J

Maruthi Car to her parents' house. If at all the accused have

necked out the victim from their house, there is no need for them

to send the victim in the car. Similarly, if the victim was sent to

her parents' house through car, it cannot be said that she was

necked out from the house. Thus, there is no clarity as to on

which date the accused alleged to have driven out the victim from

their house. It is pertinent to note that the accused has filed

O.P.No.2 of 2005 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Asifabad against the victim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

If at all the accused have driven out the victim from their house,

there was no necessity for the accused to file a petition seeking

restitution of conjugal rights against the victim.

11. Now coming to the aspect of death of the victim, it is

pertinent to note that the disputes between the parties arose in

the year 2004 and the victim died on 26.08.2006. The complaint

under Ex.P16 was lodged on 30.07.2005. The accused No.1 also

filed a petition against the victim seeking restitution of conjugal

rights. The father of the victim as PW1 deposed that the victim

died due to depression. It is the specific evidence of PW1 that the

accused have dropped the victim at the residence of the victim by

stating that the parents of the victim are responsible if anything

happens to the victim. There is no explanation on the part of MGP,J

PW1 as to what prompted accused to say that the parents of the

victim are responsible if anything happens to the victim. In the

cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the accused

gave suggestion that the victim was subjected to cruelty in the

hands of PW1, as such, the victim took extreme step of

committing suicide and that they cremated the dead body of the

victim without informing any facts to accused. Though the said

suggestions were denied by PW1, a strong suspicion is being

created with regard to the death of the victim during her stay at

her parents' house. It appears that no separate complaint is

registered by the parents of the victim with regard to the death of

the victim. Even as on the date of passing of the judgment by

the trial Court in C.C.No.4656 of 2005 the victim had already

been died but there is no specific allegation that the victim died

only due to the harassment of the accused. If at all, the victim

died only due to the harassment of the accused, then certainly

the trial Court in the judgment dated 27.11.2010 would have

found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code for the offence of abetment of suicide. Hence,

there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that unable to bear with the harassment of the

accused, the victim committed suicide after filing of the MGP,J

complaint. It is not the case of the prosecution that immediately

after giving complaint the victim committed suicide. The victim

along with her parents left the house of the accused, lodged

complaint on 30.08.2005 and on 26.08.2006 i.e., almost an year

from the date of complaint she alleged to have committed suicide

in the house of her parents. Thus, in the absence of any

concrete material against the accused, the death of victim cannot

be attributed against the accused.

12. Now coming to the aspect of dowry, the appellant/PW1

relied upon Ex.P4 i.e., compact disc, which was played before the

trial Court. As per the visuals in Ex.P4, the accused also

presented, silver rings, gold chain, gold ring, customary articles

to the bride while performing the marriage. PW1 admitted that

both his daughter and son in law received all the customary

articles from him. PW1 further admitted that one cannot say

that items appearing in Ex.P4 are gold or silver items and that

Ex.P4 film is not specifying the exact amount given to the couple.

13. In order to prove the alleged harassment meted out by the

victim in the hands of accused, the prosecution relied upon the

evidence of PW2, who was the tenant of accused No.3. PW2

deposed that accused never harassed the victim. The prosecution MGP,J

also relied upon the evidence of PW4, who was the owner of the

house, wherein the victim and accused No.1 lived as tenants. In

the cross examination, PW4 deposed that the parents of the

victim came to Mancherial and took away the victim. This

evidence of PW4 discloses that it is the parents of the victim who

have taken the victim from the company of accused No.1 and

that there is no truth in the allegation of victim that she was

driven out by the accused from their house. PW9 is the wife of

PW4 and she deposed that accused No.1 and victim lived

peacefully in their house and they never quarreled with each

other in their presence.

14. PW3 is one of the caste elders alleged to have been present

in the panchayath held to settle the disputes between the parties.

The evidence of PW3 is crucial only to the extent of holding

panchayath between the parties and his evidence is no way

relevant to arrive to a conclusion about the alleged harassment

meted out by the victim in the hands of accused. PW8 is the wife

of PW3 and she also did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. PWs 5 and 6 are the witness examined by the prosecution

to establish that the parents of the victim gave dowry to the MGP,J

accused persons. However, PWs 5 and 6 pleaded ignorance as to

whether dowry was given to the accused persons.

16. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, who registered the case

against the accused based on Ex.P16. Though the victim alleged

to have enclosed certain documents in support of her contentions

in Ex.P16 to her complaint, PW7 deposed that the victim has not

given any documents along with complaint. One of the

allegations of the victim against the accused is that while

dropping the victim at her residence, the accused have circulated

pamphlets were distributed in the village with false propaganda

degrading the image of the victim and her family. Though the

victim alleged to have enclosed the said pamphlet to the

complaint, PW7 admitted in his cross examination that he has

not collected any document from the parents of the victim.

Further, PW7 admitted that PW1, PW4, PW9, PW10, PW3 and

LW3 have not stated before him that they have witnessed

quarrels between accused and the victim.

17. PW10 is the witness, who deposed that the accused

harassed the victim for additional dowry and that accused have

executed Ex.P4 undertaking not to harass the victim and also to

return the money of one lakh rupees and gold ornaments to MGP,J

victim. In the cross examination, he admitted that accused did

not demand any dowry at the time of marriage in his presence.

PW10 further admitted that accused No.3 presented gante

pustala, one gold ring to the victim at the time of marriage.

PW10 admitted that in Ex.P3 it was not mentioned that the

accused have admitted that they have harassed the victim

demanding additional dowry. PW10 further admitted that in

Ex.P3 it was not mentioned that at the demand of accused, PW1

gave some amounts to them towards dowry.

18. PW11 is the neighbour of accused examined to depose

about the harassment of the victim in the hands of accused but

he too turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose

anything about the facts of the case.

19. Thus, on perusal of entire evidence relied upon by the

prosecution, there is no iota of evidence to establish that the

accused have demanded dowry and on such demand the parents

of the victim provided dowry to the accused. Even as per Ex.P4,

it appears that the parents of the accused and parents of the

victim have exchanged customary articles among themselves and

there is no clarity as to what was the exact amount or the

articles that were exchanged between the parties. When there is MGP,J

no evidence to establish that the parents of the victim gave dowry

to the accused, the question of demanding additional dowry does

not arise, more particularly, when there is veracity in the version

of PW1 and the victim with regard to the quantum of additional

dowry.

20. Except relying on Ex.P1 photograph, there is no other oral

or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to

establish that the victim was harassed by the accused. There is

no evidence to establish that Ex.P1 pertains to the hand of the

victim. If at all the victim alleged to have sustained burn injuries

as shown in Ex.P1, the victim ought to have visited the hospital

immediately and could have obtained some treatment or at least

she could have lodged complaint before the nearest Police Station

with the assistance of her father/PW1. But there is no such

instance. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P1 in arriving

to a conclusion that the accused have committed physical

harassment against the victim.

21. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that accused No.1

filed a petition seeking custody of grandson of PW1 before

Adilabad Court. In Ex.P16 it is alleged by the victim that the

accused took the custody of the child and they were responsible MGP,J

for ill health of the child as they gave the child him sweets and

ice creams. When the accused No.1 has filed petition seeking

custody of his son, it shows the love and affection he has towards

his child and in such circumstances, it cannot be suspected that

the accused are bent upon to spoil the health to the child. Thus,

the above allegation is appearing to be very vague and trivial.

22. PW1 admitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 or any other

family members were not living with accused No.1 and the victim

at relevant point of time when the victim finally came out of the

house. Thus, the question of accused Nos.2 and 3 harassing the

victim also does not arise.

23. It is pertinent to note that apart from the present case, the

victim has filed a criminal case against the accused for the

offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the

victim also filed a case seeking maintenance from the accused.

The Honourable Supreme Court observed that repeated filing of

cases and complaints against a spouse can amount to 'cruelty'

for the purpose of granting divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. It

appears that the victim intends to dictate terms to the accused

by filing one case after the other. In other way filing cases by the

victim against accused No.1 is nothing but cruelty.

MGP,J

24. Except the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 10 and other official

witnesses i.e., PWs 7 and 12, all the witnesses turned hostile and

did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs

1, 3 and 10 is filled with contradictions and omissions and

thereby their evidence cannot be acted upon to find the guilt of

the accused. There is no independent evidence to corroborate

with the version of victim to establish that the accused have

harassed the victim for additional dowry. Though the victim has

made several allegations against the accused in Ex.P16, most of

those allegations are vague, baseless, frivolous and trivial in

nature based on assumptions and presumptions. As rightly

observed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in

the impugned judgment, the trial Court when the prosecution

failed to prove the very demand for additional dowry, there is no

question of finding the accused guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was further observed

in the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Court is not

correct in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution in respect

of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

believing the same evidence in respect of the offence under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there is no

direct and independent evidence placed by the prosecution MGP,J

against the accused so as to find them guilty of the offences

leveled against them.

25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the appellant failed to establish any of the

grounds to arrive to a conclusion that the impugned judgment

passed by the passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at

Adilabad in Criminal appeal No.116 of 2010 suffers from any

illegality or irregularity enabling this Court to set aside the same.

Except bringing to the notice of the court about the death of the

victim during the pendency of the case before the trial court, there

are no tenable grounds raised by the appellant to set aside the

impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and

liable to be dismissed.

26. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 20.01.2025 AS