Telangana High Court
B.Pandurangachary vs The State Of A.P. on 15 July, 2022
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1398 of 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the revision petitioner/A1, challenging the judgment, dated 08.09.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2008 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the Court below partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/A1 vide order, dated 26.02.2008, passed in C.C.No.113 of 2008 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and partly dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, but however, modified the sentence of imprisonment for the said offence from two years to one year.
2. I have heard the submissions of Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. I have perused the record.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the petitioner/A1 and the 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 complainant/wife was performed on 06.12.1996 at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, the mother of complainant (PW.2) gave an amount of Rs.65,000/- in cash to the parents of petitioner/A1, apart from other articles. In all, the mother of the complainant incurred an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- for the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner/A1 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for his business purpose. A1 to A3 threatened the complainant and her mother that if they fail to meet the demand of additional dowry, they will go for second marriage to the petitioner/A1. At one point of time, A1 to A3 went to the extent of pouring kerosene on the complainant and tried to set her ablaze. Luckily, she escaped and came back to her mother's house at Hyderabad. The complainant went to the doctor at Gajwel many times, whenever the petitioner/A1 caused injuries to her. The complainant tolerated the harassment of A1 to A3 with a fond hope that there would be change in their attitude. However, A1 to A3 did not mend their attitude and finally, on 14.06.1999, the complainant was necked out from her matrimonial home. Since then, she is living with her mother. The complainant faced all the humiliations and harassment at the hands of the accused.
4. On receipt of private complaint referred by the trial Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the police registered a case in Crime 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 No.38 of 2000, completed investigation and laid charge-sheet before the trial Court against the petitioner/A1 and A3 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act', for brevity). The trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner/A1 and A3 for the said offences, furnished copies to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., examined them under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., framed charges against them for the said offences, read over and explained to them for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. PW.1-Shoba is the complainant, PW.2-Lakshmi is the mother of the complainant, PW.3- N.Krishna Chary is the brother of the complainant and PW.4- G.Sambasiva is the inspector of police and investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P2 is the FIR in the subject crime No.38/2000.
6. When the petitioner/A1 and A3 were confronted with the incriminating material appearing against them and were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same and contended that they are falsely implicated in the case. On behalf of the petitioner/A1 and A3, no evidence, either oral or documentary, has been adduced.
4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008
7. The trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, while acquitting A3 of the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of DP Act, convicted and sentenced the petitioner/A1 of the said offences, holding that the petitioner/A1 demanded Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and when PW.1 and PW.2 pleaded their inability, he started harassing the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A1 preferred the subject Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2008 before the Court below. The Court below, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/A1 for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act and partly dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, but however, modified the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him for the said offence from two years to one year. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A1 filed this Criminal Revision Case.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A1 would contend that there is no evidence, much less cogent and convincing evidence, to establish that the petitioner/A1 subjected PW.1 to cruelty. The allegations against the petitioner/A1 are general and vague. The 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 evidence of prosecution witnesses is not inspiring confidence to act upon it. Even if all the allegations levelled against the petitioner/A1 are taken to be true, the same would not constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC. The ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are not made out against the petitioner/A1. Further, PW.1, in her cross- examination, categorically stated that she filed the subject case for the purpose of returning cash and kinds. Mere demand not sufficient, it must be followed by an element of cruelty, which is patently absent in the present case. The Court below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner/A1 of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner/A1 beyond all reasonable doubt that he was, in any way, guilty of any act or conduct which is of the nature described in explanation (b) to Section 498A of IPC, so as to amount to 'cruelty' and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for.
9. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner/A1. The acts of the petitioner/A1, as alleged in the complaint lodged by the complainant, squarely fall within the ambit of 'cruelty' defined under explanation (b) to Section 498A of IPC. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent, consistent and inspire confidence 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 to act upon. The evidence placed on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioner/A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner/A1 of the offence under Section 498A of IPC, which was rightly confirmed by the Court below. Further, the Court below was pleased to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/A1 from two years to one year of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
10. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Criminal Revision Case is as follows:
"Whether the impugned judgment, dated 08.09.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2008 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is legally sustainable?"
POINT:-
11. Before proceeding to evaluate the evidence on record, here it is apt to discuss the law and the settled legal principles pertaining to Section 498A of IPC. Section 498A of IPC reads as follows:
Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
12. The degree of standard of proof in a criminal trial is stricter than that of civil proceedings. In a criminal trial, however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges levelled against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The question whether the charges levelled against an accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt would depend upon the facts and circumstances of case, the quality of the evidence adduced and the material placed on record. Further, explanation (b) to Section 498A of IPC states that "cruelty" means harassing a woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC does not make each and every harassment a cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely, to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security. Mere harassment by itself does not amount to cruelty. Mere demand for property etc., by itself also does not 8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 amount to cruelty. The harassment shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the unlawful demands constitutes cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
13. In Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam1, the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as follows:
"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S.498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.
14. In Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with the complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. It was held as follows:
"It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice 1 (2009) 1 SCC 330 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
15. Bearing the aforementioned settled legal position in mind, now I would venture to analyze the evidence on record. PW.1 is the wife of the petitioner/A1. She deposed that at the time of her marriage with the petitioner/A1, her parents gave Rs.65,000/- towards dowry, furniture and household articles worth Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and in all, incurred expenses of Rs.1,60,000/- for marriage. Except contending so, no iota of evidence is placed on record to substantiate 10 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 the same. PW.1 further deposed that for two weeks after marriage, they stayed happily, but the petitioner/A1 started harassing her by demanding more dowry saying that the dowry given to him was not sufficient to him. She further deposed that when her mother (PW.2) and her brother (PW.3) came to see her, the petitioner/A1 also quarreled with them and demanded Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of doing business and when they expressed their inability to pay the said amount, the petitioner/A1 got angry and drove them out of the house saying that he would go for second marriage, if they do not bring the demanded amount. PW.1 further deposed that after their departure, petitioner/A1 started beating her and all the accused persons started harassing her. PW.1 further deposed that when the sister-in-law of the petitioner/A1 slapped her, she complained to the petitioner/A1, who, in turn, said that she should tolerate, as her sister-in-law is the half husband. PW.1 further deposed that the petitioner/A1 poured kerosene on her and tried to set her ablaze in the presence of A3, but however, she could escape with the help of neighbours. She further deposed that she was tortured by the petitioner/A1 and his family members. It has to be seen that to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC, mere demand of dowry is not sufficient, but it must be followed by an element of cruelty. The allegation of cruelty requires a higher degree of proof and the complainant is required to establish all the facts and circumstances 11 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 constituting cruelty, which is patently absent in the instant case. In the instant case, except alleging that the petitioner/A1 and other accused harassed and tortured PW1, there is no exact description of the conduct of the accused which, according to her, amounted to harassment and torture. Further, except vague and general allegations of demand of dowry, no specific role or overt-act has been attributed to the petitioner/A1. The only major allegation of alleged cruelty against the petitioner/A1 is of pouring kerosene on PW.1 and trying to set her ablaze. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission in the absence of date, time and other material particulars about the said incident. Further, demanding money for business purpose does not per se constitute dowry to attract provisions of Section 498A, when it is not followed by cruelty or harassment, as defined under Section 498A of IPC. Further, PW.1 was cross-examined at length, wherein, it was elicited that she filed the instant case for the purpose of returning her cash and kinds and that if the petitioner/A1 returns her dowry amount and articles, she is ready to withdraw the case.
16. PW.2 is the mother of PW.1. She deposed that the petitioner/A1 threatened that he would remarry if they do not meet his demand for additional dowry. She further deposed that she came to know through PW.1 that the petitioner/A1 poured kerosene on 12 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 PW.1 and tried to set her ablaze, when PW.1 questioned the petitioner/A1 about the beating of his sister-in-law. She further deposed that the petitioner/A1 necked out PW.1 with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. PW.2 further deposed that she got PW.1 treated in several hospitals. PW.2 was cross-examined as length, wherein, she reiterated what she stated in her examination- in-chief.
17. PW.3 is the brother of PW.1. He deposed on similar lines as that of PW.2. He also deposed that he came to know through PW.1 that the petitioner/A1 poured kerosene on PW.1 and tried to set her ablaze, but however, PW.1 escaped. He further deposed that he has taken PW.1 to various hospitals for treatment including Government and private hospitals. PW.3 was also cross-examined at length, wherein, he stated that the petitioner/A1 demanded money for his business.
18. PW.4 is the investigating officer of the subject crime. He deposed that on receipt of Court referred complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2000 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued Ex.P2- FIR. On 26.02.2000, A1 to A3 surrendered before the police. He effected their arrest and sent them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet before the Court.
13 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 PW.4, in his cross-examination, admitted that there is no mention of pouring of kerosene on PW.1 by the petitioner/A1, either in Ex.P1- complaint or in his investigation.
19. Considering the totality of the circumstances coupled with the evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner/A1 are vague and general. No specific role or overt-act has been attributed to the petitioner/A1 that he harassed PW.1 with a view to coerce her to meet the alleged demand of dowry. There is no legally acceptable evidence to hold that the petitioner/A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. The prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner/A1 committed any act of cruelty against the complainant, so as to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner/A1 of the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
20. As regards the acquittal of the petitioner/A1 by the Court below for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act is concerned, the Court below recorded a finding that at the time of alleged demand, neither the petitioner/A1 was a bridegroom nor PW.1 was a bride and hence, Section 4 of DP Act would not apply, and when Section 4 of 14 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.R.C.No.1398 of 2008 DP Act has no application, the question of further applying Section 6 of DP Act does not arise at all. This Court concurs with the said finding recorded by the Court below.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide order, dated 08.09.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2008, is hereby set aside and the petitioner/A1 is acquitted of the said charge. Bail bonds of the petitioner/A1 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 15th July, 2022 KSK