Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Annapureddy Purnima vs Annapureddy Pitchamma 3 Others on 21 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.843 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioner namely Annapureddy Purnima, who was the de-facto complainant (PW.1) in C.C. No.26 of 2008, on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala (for short, 'the learned Magistrate'), wherein the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 20.02.2009, found the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (A-1 to A-3), not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'). Challenging the same, she filed this Criminal Revision Case.
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.95 of 2007 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The case of the 2 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 prosecution, before the Court below, as per the averments in the charge sheet is as follows:
On 18.05.2003, the marriage of LW.1-Annapureddy Purnima was performed with one Annapureddy Narasimha, who is the son of A-1 and brother of A-2 and A-3. At the time of marriage, A-1 was given Rs.80,000/-, 10 sovereigns of gold and other household articles as dowry instead of Rs.1,20,000/- as agreed. After the marriage, Narasimha and his wife Purnima shifted their family to Hyderabad for business. A-1 to A-3 used to visit the house of Narasimha and LW.1, and used to demand Narasimha to part with certain properties and execute documents. Later, at Hyderabad, Narasimha went missing. The de-facto complainant could not trace the whereabouts of her husband and, after lodging complaint at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, reached her matrimonial house at Rentachintala. Then, A-1 to A-3 tortured her mentally and physically and subjected her to cruelty by demanding balance dowry of Rs.40,000/- as agreed by her parents. They also pressurized her to sign on some blank papers. Hence, they are liable for punishment. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned Magistrate, Gurazala took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC 3 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 and, after completing necessary formalities, framed charge under Section 498-A IPC and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were subjected to 313 Cr.P.C. examination with reference to the incriminating circumstances for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
6. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant/PW.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8. Before going to frame the point for consideration, this Court would like to make it clear that, in view of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., while exercising the power of Revision, this Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The law is well settled to the effect that it is only when the judgment of the trial 4 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 Court is perverse and judgment was delivered ignoring the evidence on record, this Court has limited power of remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh. So, absolutely, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to show how the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and as to whether the judgment was delivered ignoring the evidence on record.
9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the prosecution before the Court below proved the charge under Section 498-A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal?
10. POINT: Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the trial Court erroneously recorded an order of acquittal but the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and as such the Court may pass appropriate orders.
11. Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, would contend that the learned Magistrate on over all consideration of the evidence on record and by 5 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 recording the sound reasons, recorded an order of acquittal, which cannot be interfered with.
12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
13. PW.1 put the criminal law in motion in fact by filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it was referred to Police for investigation. Accordingly, FIR was registered and thereafter Police after investigation filed the charge sheet. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, her evidence is that, at the time of marriage, her parents agreed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to Narasimha towards dowry but they could give cash of Rs.80,000/- only to A-1 and gave 10 sovereigns of gold etc., Later, she along with her husband shifted to Hyderabad to do mats business. A-1 to A-3 used to visit their house at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and used to insist her husband to give his share of joint family property to A-1 to A-3. Later, on one day, her husband left the house on business purpose and did not return. So, she filed a report before Police, Kukatpally. Later, she went to her in-laws house at Rentachintala, where A-1 to A-3 harassed her for balance 6 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 dowry amount. They also threatened her to put her signatures on some blank papers otherwise they will do away her life.
14. As evident from the cross-examination part, she deposed that she does not remember to prove that she approached Police to file any report against A-1 to A-3 and as to whether she does not remember whether she filed any report before Police about the missing of her husband. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of PW.1, she did not attribute any bad motive against her husband. Her husband was not an accused in this case. On the other hand, accused are the kith and kin of her husband. It is not the evidence of PW.1 that A-1 to A-3 subjected her to dowry harassment when she and her husband resided at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. So, her evidence that A-1 to A-3 used to visit their residence at Kukatpally and used to demand her husband to give his share of joint family property would not attract Section 498-A IPC. So, the offence under Section 498-A IPC was alleged when PW.1 was said to have joined with her in-laws at their village after her husband was found missing. It is to be noticed that according the evidence of PW.1, A-1 to A-3 demanded for the rest of dowry amount after she joined with them. It is rather improbable to assume that when the husband of PW.1, who was no other than 7 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 the son of A-1, was found missing and his whereabouts are not at all traced, A-1 to A-3 would demand for balance dowry. Her further evidence that they also demanded her to put her signatures on blank papers is nothing but vague. Admittedly, when her evidence is that when she along with her husband were at Kukatpally, A-1 to A-3 used to harass her husband, it is not understandable as to how she could join with her in-laws, after her husband went missing. The evidence of PW.1 in this regard cannot stand to the test of scrutiny.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, father of PW.1, he deposed in support of the evidence of PW.1. As admitted by him in cross- examination, he has no personal knowledge that accused demanded the husband of PW.1 to sign on blank stamp papers to get the share of the husband of PW.1. So, his evidence is hearsay in nature. Even it is not his evidence that A-1 to A-3 demanded him to pay rest of the dowry amount.
16. PW.3 claimed to be a mediator and, according to him, PW.2 called him to act as a mediator at the house of the accused and he went to Rentachintala and he waited for ten minutes at the house of the accused and later he left the village. His evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution in any way. According to his 8 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 cross-examination, he does not know that the dowry was paid to the husband of PW.1. According to PW.3, though he deposed that A-1 to A-3 used to harass PW.1 for remaining dowry but he deposed that he does not know what happened at Hyderabad. He was not a witness when A-1 to A-3 allegedly demanded PW.1 for rest of the dowry. On the other hand, he was informed by PW.2 that accused harassed PW.1. So, his evidence is also hearsay in nature. The evidence of PW.4 is also hearsay in nature as regards the allegations against A-1 to A-3 having subjected PW.1 for dowry harassment.
17. According to PW.5, he came to know that PW.1 was subjected to harassment by A-1 to A-3 and they also harassed her husband. Even according to him, he is not a witness to the occurrence.
18. PW.6 did not support the case of the prosecution.
19. According to PW.7, PW.1 returned to Rentachintala due to disputes between PW.1 and her husband and she stayed two or three months with the accused and thereafter disputes arose between them. Accused demanded PW.1 to put her signatures on the blank papers. As pointed out, it was an improbable act on the 9 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 part of PW.1 to join with her in-laws and even the evidence of PW.7 is also vague.
20. PW.8 did not support the case of the prosecution.
21. PW.9 deposed that PW.1 left the house of A-1 on the ground that A-1 to A-3 harassed her for balance dowry. He denied that he is deposing false.
22 PW.10 is the Investigating Officer, who has spoken about the investigation.
23. As evident from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the criminal law was put into motion by PW.1 by filing a private complaint. Police, conducted investigation and later filed charge sheet. The core allegation against A-1 to A-3 is that when PW.1 joined with them, after her husband found missing, they demanded her for the rest of dowry amount. On the other hand, there is also an allegation in the evidence of PW.1 that A-1 to A-3 used to demand her husband to part with his share in the joint family property. When there were ill-feelings between the husband of PW.1 with A-1 to A-3 on one hand and PW.1 with A-1 to A-3 on the other hand and especially when the husband of PW.1 went missing, it is rather improbable to assume that she would prefer to 10 AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.843/2009 stay with A-1 to A-3 instead of her parents. The whole dispute appears to be on account of the property dispute.
24. Having regard to the above, the learned Magistrate, Gurazala rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded an order of acquittal. Reasons furnished by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse. It is not a case where the learned Magistrate delivered the judgment without looking into the evidence on record. On the other hand, he recorded due reasons to record an order of acquittal. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal.
25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :21.12.2022 DSH