Telangana High Court
Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 23 June, 2023
1 RRN,J
Crl.RC No.34 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 34 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of the Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No.110 of 2011 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem, by modifying the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.196 of 2009 dt.04.07.2011 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below').
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. That the marriage of the revision petitioner/accused No.1 was performed with the de-facto complainant about 5 years back by giving dowry and other household articles. Out of wedlock, the de-facto complainant and the revision petitioner/accused No.1 were blessed with two daughters. Later, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 started harassing the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry from het parents with active instigation of accused No. 2 and 3 (younger brother and 2 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 mother of accused No.1) and he developed illegal intimacy with another woman and also threatened the de-facto complainant to kill her if she fails to bring additional dowry and the marriage of the revision petitioner/accused No.1 will be performed with the elder sister of younger brother's wife for which the de-facto complainant had waited with the fond hope that the harassment in the hands of accused will be stopped in future but there is no change in the attitude of accused. Hence she filed a complaint with the Police to take necessary action.
4. To prove their case, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. No material objects were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Accused.
5. The Trial Court upon perusing the material available on record, convicted all the accused for the punishable offence under section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period undergone by the accused, if any, was ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
3 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015
6. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal vide Crl.A No.110 of 2011 before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem (for short, 'the lower Appellate Court') and the lower Appellate Court was pleased to partly allow the appeal vide judgment dt.08.01.2015 by confirming the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused No.1, and acquitting the accused No.2 and 3. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.1.
7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant. Perused the entire material available on record.
8. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 contended that the judgments of both the Courts below are erroneous and both Courts have kept aside the fact and crucial admissions of PW-1 in her cross-examination that she has not mentioned the details of the dowry i.e. the amount given to the revision petitioner/accused No.1 towards dowry, the name of the woman with whom the revision petitioner/accused No.1 was having an alleged affair, and also that she failed to mention about 4 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 the alleged harassment meted out by the accused. He further contended that the witnesses are interested and no independent/eyewitness was examined on behalf of the prosecution, as such, the case of the prosecution was not proved. He also stressed the fact that PW-6/Investigating Officer admitted that PW-1 did not state the material allegations in Ex.P1 report. Accordingly, prayed to allow the criminal revision case and set aside the judgments passed by both Courts below.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant had contended that the Trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused and no interference is required by this Court. It was also contended that there are specific allegations with regard to the amount of dowry and the allegations make out a case under section 498-A of IPC and as such, the revision petitioner/ accused No.1 is guilty of the offence charged and prayed to dismiss the present case.
10. It is seen from the record that accused No.2 and 3 were acquitted by the lower Appellate Court by extending the benefit of the doubt on the ground that specific allegations were not made against them and the evidence of the witnesses was not 5 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 corroborated and on the main ground that the content of Ex.P1 was not stated by PW-1 whereas it was narrated by PW-1 and as such, PW-2 might have named accused No.2 and 3 in a routine manner. But perusing the entire judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it is observed that there is no independent analysis or reasoning given as to how the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused No.1 cannot be interfered with. The lower Appellate Court's observation with respect to the revision petitioner/ accused No.1 is as follows:
"22. However, the observation of the trial court in awarding sentence against Accused No.1 is considered in para 25 in between the citation two lines.
24. .......Regarding case against Accused No.1 the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 who are alleged to have been acted as elders at the time of Panchayat in which PW.1 and accused No.1 lead marital life for one week and thereafter the attitude of Accused No.1 towards PW.1 not yet changed and he demanded her. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 supports the case for acted as panchayatdars. Admittedly, PW.1 has been residing at her parents' house and PW.2 is her father was working as an employee in Singareni and the report was got presented by him to the police by obtaining signature of PW.1 as per her evidence in cross examination. However, in a case under section 498-A IPC, the living separation will leads to cause some differences in between the couple and the reasons best known to the investigating agency in filing the case for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC."
11. A bare reading of the above goes to show that no concrete analysis and explanation is given by the lower Appellate 6 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 Court and the lower Appellate Court in its complete judgment has referred to PWs.3 and 4 as alleged panchayatdars. As such, there is a reasonable doubt created with regard to the very panchayat which the prosecution claims to have taken place. Further, both the Courts below have ignored the fact that Ex.P1 does not contain all the material allegations and specific details as stated by PW-1 in her chief affidavit. Admittedly, the contents in Ex.P1 were got stated by PW-2 and not PW-1. Even for a second, assuming that all the material allegations and specific details were not reflected in Ex.P1 as it was not PW-1 who stated it and there is no scope for improvement of the case, the same cannot be considered as at least the 161 Cr.P.C statements ought to have borne all the material allegations and specific details. It can be safely concluded that the case of the prosecution was improved through the evidence of PW-1 and the same cannot be permitted.
12. Another point which is to be stressed is that, though there are allegations in Ex-P1 that dowry was given, additional dowry was demanded, the revision petitioner/A.No.1 was involved in an illicit relationship with another woman, the accused persons beat PW-1 and threatened to kill her if she does not bring additional dowry; PW-6 after completion of the investigation, has 7 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 filed charge sheet only for the offence under section 498-A IPC, meaning thereby that all other allegations were not substantiated.
13. It is pertinent to observe here what the Trial Court observed in the two lines, as stated by the lower Appellate Court in para No.22 of its judgment. The two lines state, "But in the present case in hand, harassment arises mentally by pointing Pw.1's colour and having illegal intimacy and threatening."
There is absolutely no justification to this observation leading to the conclusion made by the Trial Court. There was no allegation with regard to the revision petitioner/accused No.1 harassing PW-1 with regard to her colour and there is no proof other than the self-serving testimony of PW-1 with regard to the alleged illicit relationship with a woman. Even the name of such woman, existent or not, was later only at the time of chief evidence, mentioned as Sudha. With regard to threatening, no charge is framed against the accused under section 506 of IPC.
Further, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that amount was demanded by the accused for the sake of additional dowry, and the same can be concluded by perusing the chargesheet itself as after the investigation, Sections 8 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were also not invoked. As such, when there is no harassment related to dowry, and the other allegations are being created/improved at a later stage, the benefit of the doubt can be safely given in favour of the revision petitioner/accused No.1.
14. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt, meaning thereby, the judgments of both the Courts below against the revision petitioner/accused No.1 are erroneous and are liable to be set aside.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment dated 08.01.2015 in Crl.A.No. 110 of 2011 on the file of the V-Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem is and the judgment in C.C.No. 196 of 2009 dated 04-07-2011 on the file of the II Additional Judge Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner/accused No.1 is acquitted of the convicted offence. The fine amount paid by the revision petitioner/accused No.1 shall be returned to him and the bail bonds of the revision petitioner/accused No.1 shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.
9 RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 23rd day of June 2023 BDR