Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Geddapu Venkunaidu 2 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 21 February, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:-
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants, who are the Accused No.2 to Accused No.4 in S.C. S.T. Sessions Case No.12 of 2008, on the file of Special Jude for Trial of Cases under SCs.& STs. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (hereinafter will be referred to "Special Judge"), challenging the judgment, dated 27.10.2010, where under the learned Special Judge while acquitting A.1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and A.2 to A.4 under Section 3(x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act and further acquitting A.2 to A.4 under Section 506(2) of I.P.C., but, found guilty of the present appellants under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The SC ST Sessions Case No.12 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.7 of 2005, on the file of Judicial 2 First Class Magistrate, Cheepurupalli, pertaining to Crime No.17 of 2005 of Garividi Police Station.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.17 of 2005 of Garividi Police Station is as follows:
(i) A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3. A.4 is brother of A.2. All of them are Kapu by caste. L.W.1-Geddapu Rama Laxmi, who is the daughter of L.W.2-Damarasingi Chinnammalu and L.W.3-
Damarasingi Laxmana, belonged to SC (Mala) and they are residents of Geddapuvalasa village. A.1 fell in love with L.W.1 and they eloped to Visakhapatnam on 13.03.2003. They were working as coolies at Visakhapatnam. Later, L.W.4-Kumarapu Ramana, L.W.6-Tummaganti Suri Naidu and one Geddapu Mahesh went to Visakhapatnam and brought back A.1 and L.W.1 to Geddapuvalasa village. When a Panchayat was conducted before elders, A.1 and L.W.1 did not agree to leave each other separately and they have gone to the extent of saying that they will commit suicide, if they are separated. A.2 and A.3 did not agree to perform the marriage of A.1 with L.W.1, as they belongs to different caste. Hence, A.1 and L.W.1 went back to Visakhapatnam.
(ii) On 06.06.2003 they married with each other at Simhachalam Devasthanam in the presence of their friends. 3 Later, they went to Aruku and settled there by doing Charcole business. A.2 to A.4 went to Aruku twice or thrice and abused L.W.1 and teased her stating that they lost lakhs of dowry because of her caste. On 17.09.2004 they went to Aruku and brought back A.1 on the pretext of signing in some LIC bond. Later, A.1 did not return back to Aruku. L.W.1 lodged a complaint to Garividi Police Station. Police advised her on the point of jurisdiction to report the matter at Aruku, but, L.W.1 did not lodge any report at Aruku. When she was at Geddapuvalasa, A.2 and A.3 abused her touching the name of her caste and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- so as to enable A.1 to join her. They threatened to do harm, if she lodges any report. So, A.1 to A.4 subjected her to mental cruelty. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506(2) of I.P.C. and Section 3(x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act and committed the case to the Special Court. After appearance of the accused before the learned Special Judge, charges under Sections 498-A and 506(2) of I.P.C. and Section 3(x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act, were framed against the accused and were explained in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4
6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same and they did not adduce any defence evidence.
7) The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.1 not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further found A.2 to A.4 not guilty for the charge under Section 3(x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act and further found A.2 to A.4 not guilty of the charge under Section 506 (2) of I.P.C., but, found A.2 to A.4 guilty of the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.2 to A.4 filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction of them under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
8) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that A.2 to A.4 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C.? 5 POINT:-
9) Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the Court below disbelieved the evidence adduced by the prosecution as regards the allegations under Section 498-A of IPC against A.1 and further the allegations under Section 3(x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act against A.2 to A.4 and further allegations under Section 506(2) of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.4 rightly. The Court below simply believed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 which did not establish the allegations under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.4. The allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- as alleged in Ex.P.1 was improved during the course of trial by P.W.1 and the omissions are proved categorically. P.W.2 and P.W.3 altogether spoke about different venue i.e., their house as place of offence in this regard. The evidence of P.W.4 comes in conflict with the case of the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers with omissions and contradictions and serious discrepancies and the Court below erroneously convicted the present appellants under Section 498-A of I.P.C., as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support 6 the judgment of the Court below by contending that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 proves the allegations of cruelty against A.2 to A.4 and the judgment of Court below is liable to be confirmed.
11) This Court would like to make it clear that the contents of the charge sheet are as if on the ground that P.W.1 belongs to Schedule Caste. A.2 to A.4 used to harass her in the name of caste by demanding dowry, etc. The allegations that A.2 to A.4 humiliated P.W.1 in the name of caste were found to be not true according to the judgment of the Court below. So, the scope of this appeal is very limited. The simple question that falls for consideration is as to whether A.2 to A.4 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C.?
12) The ingredients under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is such that if any relative of a married woman subjected her for demand of any dowry or for demand of any valuable security or subjected her harassment, which is of such a nature which drives the woman to commit suicide, it can be taken as a cruelty.
13) For better appreciation, it is pertinent to look into Ex.P.1 firstly. So, the substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 with regard to Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.4 is that the marriage with A.1 took place on 06.06.2003. Since then, A.2 to 7 A.4 used to harass her for dowry and used to harass her in the name of the caste. On 17.09.2004 A.2 to A.4 took away A.1, as such, she lodged a report on 08.10.2004 with Garividi Police.
Garividi Police enquired and told that they are not aware of A.1. Later, A.2 to A.4 came to her village and demanded to give Rs.1,00,000/- and if that is complied, they will handover A.1 to her. This is a crucial allegation.
14) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.1, absolutely, she did not speak since the date of marriage, A.2 to A.4 used to harass her for any dowry. Her allegation that they used to harass her in the name of the caste cannot be considered by this Court because A.2 to A.4 were exonerated of the said charge. Now, the whole controversy is after A.1 was allegedly taken away by A.2 to A.4 on the pretext of getting signature on LIC bond. In this connection, her evidence is that when A.1 was taken away by other accused, she gave complaint on 08.10.2004. Police called her and advised her to approach Aruku Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Later, when she was 8th month pregnancy, A.2 to A.4 came to their house and threatened that if she loges any complaint, they would kill her and her child in the womb and they caught hold her tuft, dragged her and beat her stating that if she bring Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, they would show A.1. During the course of cross 8 examination, she denied that she did not state before police that A.2 to A.4 caught hold of her tuft, dragged her and beat her. The defence counsel elicited from the mouth of investigating officer i.e., P.W.11 that P.W.1 did not state either in Ex.P.1 or before him that A.2 to A.4 came to their house and caught hold of her tuft, dragged her and beaten her. This is material omissions which amount to contradiction. So, P.W.1 deliberately improved overt acts against A.2 to A.4 as if they caught hold of her tuft, dragged her and beaten her. Such omission for the first time before the Court is not believable. So, the crucial allegation in Ex.P.1 is only that A.2 to A.4 demanded her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and if that is complied, they would allow A.1 to join with her. According to P.W.1, the said incident was happened at her house.
15) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is mother of P.W.1, she deposed that she and P.W.1 went to the house of A.2 and A.3 and asked them as to why they brought back A.1 and P.W.1, told them that in case A.1 is allowed to P.W.1, both of them will go back to Aruku. Then, A.2 to A.4 beat P.W.1 and abused her by touching her caste and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. So, this incident according to P.W.2 was happened at the house of A.2 and A.3, but, according to P.W.1, it was happened at her house.
9
16) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard, his evidence is that he, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the house of A.2 and A.3 and asked them as to why they brought back A.1 and then they abused him, his wife and his daughter and they asked them to give Rs.1,00,000/- and told them that they would not allow A.1 to live with P.W.1. So, according to P.W.3, it was happened at the house of A.2 and A.3. P.W.3 did not depose that A.2 to A.4 beaten P.W.1.
17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.6, the so-called witness, who claimed to have witnessed this episode, his evidence is that he is resident of Geddapuvalasa village. In the year 2005, on one day, at about 3-00 p.m., or 4-00 p.m., when he was going to his house, a galata took place at the house of P.W.1. A.3 came and altercated with P.W.2. A.3 told to P.W.2 that if his son married another girl, he would get Rs.1,00,000/- and that if the amount is paid, they would allow A.1 to join with P.W.1 and so saying A.3 abused P.W.1.
18) It is to be noticed that according to P.W.6, the incident was happened at the house of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, it was happened at her house. According to P.W.2 and P.W.3, it was happened at the house of A.2 and A.3. P.W.6 did not testify the presence of A.2 and A.4. So, it is very clear that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, 10 P.W.3 and P.W.6. The simple allegation in Ex.P.1 was that A.2 to A.4 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- dowry by imposing a condition that if that is paid, they would allow A.1 to join with P.W.1. The said place of incident was at the house of P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 speak a different place as that of the house of A.2 and A.3. P.W.3 did not testify that A.2 to A.4 beaten P.W.1. Even Ex.P.1 does not contain any allegation that accused beaten P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.W.1 suffers with any amount of serious discrepancies. In my considered view, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 is not at all believable.
19) Already there was any amount of estrangement between the parties. P.W.1 and A.1 eloped to Visakhapatnam prior to the marriage and they did not follow the advice of the elders and they were very firm to get their marriage performed and got their marriage performed against the wishes of their parents. The act of A.2 to A.4 in asking A.1 to come to their house to sign LIC bond would not establish the allegation under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The solitary allegation in Ex.P.1 is that A.2 to A.4 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- was improved during the course of trial, as such, there are serious discrepancies and the evidence adduced is not at all convincing. It is unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 so as to fasten criminal liability against A.2 to A.4.
11
20) A look at the judgment of the learned Special Judge shows that at para No.37, he simply believed the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 without any analysation of their evidence. He did not look into the issue that P.W.1 deliberately improved the evidence during the course of trial and that P.W.2 and P.W.3 for obvious reasons shifted the scene of offence, as regards the allegations of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- to the house of the accused and that P.W.3 did not testify that P.W.1 was subjected to attack as alleged by P.W.1 and that the attack alleged by P.W.1 has no support from Ex.P.1 and that P.W.6 did not testify the presence of A.2 and A.4. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that when the learned Special Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution, as to the allegations against A.1 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further against A.2 to A.4 under Section 3 (x)(i) of SC ST (POA) Act and Section 506 (ii) of I.P.C., he ought to have taken proper care to analyse the evidence adduced by the prosecution under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.4 with care and caution. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is analysed absolutely, this Court do not find any reason whatsoever to support the judgment of the learned Special Judge. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge simply believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution without looking into the serious discrepancies, as 12 such, it is unsafe to believe the evidence. Hence, in my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove the case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.4 before the Court below, as such, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside insofar as the conviction against A.2 to A.4 under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
21) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 27.10.2010 in S.C. S.T. Sessions Case No.12 of 2008, on the file of Special Jude for Trial of Cases under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, as such, A.2 to A.4 shall stand acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 21.02.2023.
PGR 13 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2010 Date: 21.02.2023 PGR