Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pedapudi Venkata Ramanamma vs The State Of A.P. 2 Others on 25 February, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.R.C. No. 832 of 2008
O R D E R:-
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the informant under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 29.03.2007 in acquitting the accused in C.C.No. 458 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yalamanchili.
Originally, the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein - A1 and A2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. By its judgment dated 29.03.2007, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present revision case is filed.
The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner - informant and A1 was performed eight years ago. At the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 gave dowry, sare samans and also some money to A1. After the birth of a female child, A1 started harassing the petitioner to bring additional dowry. It is stated that the accused beat PW1 and sent her away from conjugal home. On 20.05.2002, both the accused came to house of PW1, quarrelled with them and tried to beat PW1 by demanding additional dowry. Basing on the report given by PW1, a case in Crime No.29 of 2002 of Payakaraopeta Police Station came to be registered. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
2 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished, and thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to which they denied the offence.
On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 498-A IPC came to be framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P2. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but however, they did not adduce any defence evidence.
Relying upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the informant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner - informant would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be found fault with. According to him, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW1 would prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. He took me through the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 in support of his plea.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused opposed the same contending that the evidence of the prosecution 3 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 witnesses is not only inconsistent but it is a complete improvement from what they stated before the police.
PW1 is no other than the daughter of PWs.2 and 4. According to her, she was given in marriage to A1 about 7 years ago and out of wedlock a female child was born. It is stated that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.30,000/-, and at the time of coming to her parents' house for pongal, her parents gave one tula of gold and cash of Rs.1000/-. Both of them lived happily for one year, and thereafter, the accused started demanding additional dowry and subjected her to harassment. It was stated that on one occasion A1 and A2 came to PW1 and demanded dowry. It is also stated that the accused beat and abused her. The evidence of PW1 also shows that A1 developed illicit intimacy with another woman, and she filed a criminal case, which was subsequently compromised. Pursuant thereto, A1 took away cash of Rs.7,000/- kept by her in the house. In view of the harassment, Ex.P1 - report came to be lodged setting the law into motion. PW1 was cross-examined at length.
To trust the veracity of the evidence of PW1, one should also note the contents of Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1, small amounts were given by the father of PW1 to the accused on different occasions. It was not averred in the report as to the quantum of amount paid pursuant to any demand or harassment made by A1. As seen from the contents of PW1, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was given on one occasion and on another occasion Rs.10,000/- was given by the father of PW1 on 01.06.1991. The contents of Ex.P1 do not 4 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 anywhere indicate any demand or insistence for payment of the said amount. Further, the evidence of PW1 is silent on the payments of money as referred to earlier.
Coming to the evidence of PW2, it is to be seen that she also speaks about Rs.10,000/- paid by her on 01.06.1991 on the demand of A1, but the same is contrary to the contents of Ex.P1 where there is no reference to demand of dowry. It is also to be noted that PW2 is said to have filed a suit against A1 for recovery of Rs.10,000/-. This filing of suit, creates a doubt whether there was any demand of Rs.10,000/- on 01.06.1991. Whether such demand was made twice and a promissory note to the said sum came to be executed in respect of one transaction and in respect of another transaction the same was referred to as payment of the amount as demanded by the accused, cannot be accepted.
The other evidence strongly pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the evidence of PW6. He categorically deposed that on hearing a verbal altercation between PW1 and the accused, he went there and when questioned, PW1 seems to have told that the accused harassed her. He seems to have advised them not to quarrel with each other, and separated them. This took place at 05:00 P.M., but the evidence of PW2 does not indicate interference of PW6 in the quarrel and also separating both of them. The evidence of PW1 also does not show when PW6 intervened and when she disclosed about the harassment by the accused. Though PW6 speaks about the harassment for dowry and 5 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 the information of such harassment was furnished by PW1 but the evidence of PW1 is silent on that aspect.
That apart, it is also to be noted that in a case, where a revision against acquittal of the accused is filed, the scope of interference is very limited unless it is pointed out that the reasoning given by the trial Court is perverse.
In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"That it was open to a High Court in revision and at the instance of a private party to set aside an order of acquittal though the State might not have appealed. But such jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases, as where a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error of law leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice has taken place. When s. 439(4) of the Code forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it is not proper that the High Court should do the same indirectly by ordering a retrial. It was not possible to lay down the criteria for by which to judge such exceptional cases. It was, however, clear that the High Court would be justified in interfering in cases such as (1) where the trial court had wrongly shut out evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution, (2) where the appeal court had wrongly held evidence admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, (3) where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the court of appeal or, (4) where the acquittal was based on a compounding of the offence not permitted by law and cases similar to the above.
In Kalu Ahir And Others vs Ramdeo Ram2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"An unrestricted right of appeal from acquittal is specifically conferred only on the State and a private complainant is given the right of appeal ,only when the criminal prosecution was instituted on his complaint and then also subject to special leave by the High Court. A private complainant can 1 AIR 1962 SC 1788 2 AIR 1973 SC 2145
6 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 only claim a right, in common with all aggrieved parties in a criminal proceeding, to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for redress against miscarriage of justice arising from an erroneous order of acquittal; but the High Court's power in such cases is circumscribed by the provisions of Ss. 417 and 439, Cr.P.C. and also by the fundamental principles of criminal Jurisprudence it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised only in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lightly set aside when-such orders expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. The power of revision conferred on the High Court by Ss. 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary power vested in the superior court to be exercised in aid of justice. The High Court has been invested with this power to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence and that the subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse the power conferred on them by law. As a general rule, this power, in spite of the wide language of the sections does not contemplate interference with conclusions of fact in the absence of serious legal infirmity and failure of justice. This power is certainly not intended to be exercised as to one portion of the Criminal Procedure Code conflict with another as would be the case when, in the garb ,of exercising revisional power, the High Court in effect exercises the power of appeal in face of statutory prohibition. In revision, the High Court is expressly prohibited from converting acquittal into a conviction it makes it therefore all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering a retrial. The High Court when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision in the case of an order of acquittal should therefore refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. The High Court is not expected to act as if it is hearing an appeal in spite of the wide language under s. 435 which empowers it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of any proceeding, and also in spite of the fact that under s.439 it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under s.423, Cr.P.C. The power being discretionary, it is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Judicial discretion means a discretion which is informed by analogy and disciplined by system".
7 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 In State of Orissa Appellant v. Nakula Sahu and others Respondents3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"9. So far as the first point is concerned, it is to be emphasised that although the revisional power of the High Court under S. 439 read with Sec. 435 of the Code the Criminal Procedure, 1898 is as wide as the power of Court of Appeal under S. 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (1973) 4 SCC 10 : (AIR 1973 SC 799) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583 : (AIR 1973 SC 2145). In the latter case viz. Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) this Court following its earlier decision in the Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (supra) held that in spite of the wide language of S. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which empowered it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior court situate within the limits of its jurisdiction and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court and in spite of the fact that under S. 439 of the Code it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under S. 423 of the Code the High Court is not expected to act under S. 435 or S. 439 as if it is hearing an appeal. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. Judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which in informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system".
In view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above and having regard to the nature of evidence adduced, and this being a revision against acquittal where the scope of interference is very limited, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 3 AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 663 8 CPK,J CrlRC_832_2008 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 25.02.2020 bcj