Allowed

Poluru Rajnikanth , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2019CRLRC/208/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 498A IPC, the High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant despite corroborative testimony regarding marriage. The revision court held that the prosecution failed to establish harassment or dowry demand, noting that the sole testimony regarding abortion lacked medical corroboration.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside and any fine paid is to be refunded.

Poluru Rajnikanth , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.208 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment, dated 05.02.2007, passed in C.A.No.203 of 2004 on the file of the court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Chittoor, by virtue of which the said court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment, dated 18.08.2004, passed in C.C.No.176 of 2003 on the file of the court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Chittoor, whereby the appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

¶5

The facts of the case briefly are that the de facto complainant and A1 fell in love with each other without the knowledge of the elders and believing that A1 would marry her, the de facto complainant developed close intimacy with A1. Thereby, when the de facto complainant became pregnant before marriage, their relationship of love came to the knowledge of their elders, who decided to perform their marriage. Betrothal agreement was also reduced into writing and the marriage was celebrated in the local Kavamma temple in Ellampalle village on 08.02.2002, for which the Sarpanch also issued marriage certificate. After the said marriage, as the accused did not get dowry, A2 to A4 instigated A1 to discard his wife

¶6

¶7

so that they will perform another marriage with dowry. Thus, A1 to A4 subjected the de facto complainant to harassment. Without the knowledge of the de facto complainant, they got her pregnancy aborted with the help of local Doctor. Thereby, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.13 of 2002 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

¶8

After complying with all the legal formalities, the court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Chittoor, (hereinafter referred to as, “trial court”), framed charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC, against all the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty. The trial court, on behalf of the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. After examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the court passed the judgment convicting the appellant as aforementioned and the other accused were acquitted. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred appeal viz., C.A.No.203 of 2004, before the court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Chittoor, (hereinafter referred to as, “first appellate court”) in which the impugned judgment came to be passed confirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the appellants.

¶9

The grounds on which the revision is preferred are that the trial court ought to have acquitted A1 while acquitting A2 to A4. The

¶10

¶11

lower courts failed to appreciate that there was marriage between the appellant and the de facto complainant and that the documents Exs.P2, P3, P4, and P4A were just created for the purpose of foisting a false case against the appellant. The courts below failed to see that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the appellant committed offence under Section 498A IPC.

¶12

None appears for the revision petitioner on 31.07.2019. Hence, the matter was posted to today “for orders”. In spite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for orders’, none appears for the revision petitioner. Hence, the matter is being disposed of on merits. Heard the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

Based on the above grounds, the following points arise for consideration:

¶14

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

¶15

To what result.

¶16

POINT No.1: -

¶17

PW1, who is the de facto complainant, stated that on 08.02.2002, she was married to A1 in Vinayaka temple. Their marriage was a love marriage. Believing that A1 would marry her, she allowed to have sexual intercourse with him and became pregnant. A1 postponed the marriage. The matter was taken before the village elders and they decided that A1 should marry PW1.

¶18

¶19

Thereafter she joined A1 and lived with him for ten days. A1, along with the other accused, demanded to get amounts from her parents. Accordingly, PW1 informed her father. Her father promised to provide amounts after selling jaggery. The accused did not agree for the same, beat her and pushed her out of the house. A1 took her to the hospital and got her aborted with the help of the Doctor. The said fact was informed to the police by A1. Thereafter she was sent out of the house by the accused. Thereby, she lodged a complaint in the police station. PW2, who is the father of PW1, also corroborated her evidence. According to him, there was no demand for the dowry at the time of marriage. Three months prior to the marriage, she developed intimacy with A1. Thereafter, she started living with A1 at the intervention of the elders, as A1 refused to take her.

¶20

PW3, who is the Sarpanch of the village, spoke about her attending the marriage of PW1 with A1. She was informed that the bride groom was not to be found and he fled away from the village. At the instance of PW3, a panchayat was convened and in the said panchayat, PW1’s parents requested to perform the marriage since PW1 was already pregnant by then. Two days later, the parents of A1 brought A1 to their house and discussion was held in the house of PW3, which culminated in performing the marriage of PW1.

¶21

PW4 deposed that it was decided in the house of PW3 that the marriage between PW1 and A1 should be performed then and there itself. PW4 also spoke about the earlier incidents. He spoke about the

¶22

¶23

writing of lagnapatrik and the same is marked as Ex.P4(a). PW3 also gave a certificate certifying the marriage of A1 and PW1.

¶24

The Doctor, who was examined as PW6, spoke about PW1 coming to him with the complaint of pain in the abdomen, for which he gave first aid. He did not speak about the reason for the pain and bleeding in the abdomen. She was referred to an expert. PW7 deposed that the marriage of A1 and PW1 was performed in the temple. He deposed that as seen from the original complaint there are no specific allegations against A2 to A4. Considering that there are no specific allegations against A2 to A4, the lower acquitted them. The fact of abortion was upheld, believing the evidence of PW1, though there was no corroboration. The lower court by considering that the abortion itself would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, convicted the accused. The evidence of PW6 though is not clear on the aspect of abortion, shows that there was some bleeding in the abdomen. But he did not state about the reasons for the bleeding in the abdomen. Except for the fact of abortion, there is no other evidence with regard to the harassment of cruelty extended to PW1.

¶25

Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the sole testimony of PW1 that abortion was done at the instance of the accused, cannot be believed. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution also does not corroborate the evidence of PW1.

¶26

¶27

PW6 does not even state that PW1 has reported to him that abortion

¶28

was on the pressure of the accused.

¶29

In view of the above, this court opines that based on the said simple fact, awarding of conviction under Section 498A IPC is not sustainable and hence the judgment of the courts below is liable to set aside.

¶30

POINT No.2 : -

¶31

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 05.02.2007, passed in C.A.No.203 of 2004 on the file of the court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Chittoor. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.

¶32

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶33

T. RAJANI, J

¶34

August 8, 2019 LMV

¶35

¶36

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶37

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.208 OF 2007

¶38

August 8, 2019

¶39

LMV

Poluru Rajnikanth , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poluru Rajnikanth , v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Appala Raju Vs Mylapalli Tata Rao

Sri Kakarla Rajendra Prasad Vs The Authorized Officer [Land Reforms]

Konda Bhavani Sankar Lingam Vs Nalluri Uma Pallavi

Bukka Chakri Naik, and Another, Vs the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Ins., Proddutur, and Another

M. Sivasankar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Grandhi Subrahmanyam Vs Yalamarthi Venkata Narayana Murthy