The State of A.P. Vs Gangapuram Venkateswarlu Naidu & 4 Others

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 29.09.2006 passed in CC No.90 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, whereby and whereunder respondents 2 to 4 herein/A2 to A4 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494

¶20

2

¶21

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶22

read with 114 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. Case against respondent Nos.1 and 5 herein/A1 and A5 was separated and numbered as CC No.144 of 2003 on 03.07.2003.

¶23

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A2 and A3 are the parents of A1 and A4. A5 is the second wife of A1. Marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1 on 15.05.1987. At the time of marriage, parents of PW.1 presented cash of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry besides Rs.10,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam and other household utensils. Subsequently, A1 to A4 are alleged to have started harassing PW.1 demanding more money and to bring scooter, fridge, gold chain, etc., from her parents, and that on 14.02.1998, A1 to A4 are alleged to have left PW.1 at Siruguppa bus stand and absconded. Having no other go, PW.1 went to her parents‟ house and placed the matter before elders. While so, on 01.03.1991, A2 to A4, with a view to gain some dowry, are alleged to have performed second marriage between A1 and A5 at Bellari and they both resided as wife and husband in Dhadesugar village of Raichur district. PW.1 filed a private complaint on 11.05.1998, which was forwarded to the police for

¶24

3

¶25

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶26

investigation. Based on the endorsed complaint from the Court, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru, registered a case in Crime No.75 of 1998 of Poduru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with 34 IPC and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the SubInspector of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the aforesaid offences on 31.12.1998.

¶27

As A1 and A5 were absconding, the case against them was separated and numbered as CC No.144 of 2003 on 03.07.2003 and trial in the present C.C. was proceeded against A2 to A4 only.

¶28

On appearance of A2 to A4, charges under Sections 498-A IPC and 494 read with 114 IPC were framed against them, contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶29

On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

¶30

After closure of the prosecution evidence, A2 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating

¶31

4

¶32

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶33

material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied.

¶34

On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. However, A2 filed certified copy of a memo addressed by the office of the Superintendent of Police to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Poduru Police Station to withdraw the case against A1 and A5.

¶35

The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A2 to A4 not guilty of the charges levelled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated 29.09.2006 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

¶36

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are material witnesses, and Ex.P5 voters list which shows that A1 married A5

¶37

5

¶38

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶39

and they are living as wife and husband. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused without any valid reasons.

¶40

On the other hand, Sri S. Prashanth, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/A2 to A4, submits that the learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly acquitted A2 to A4 of the aforesaid charges and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶41

Heard. Perused the record.

¶42

This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at

¶43

the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further

¶44

6

¶45

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶46

strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.

¶47

On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab¹ , wherein it was held as follows: (para 8)

¶48

“The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in

¶49

1 AIR 1962 SC 439

¶50

7

¶51

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶52

appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.”

¶53

The objections raised by the defence with regard to the point of jurisdiction and limitation were negatived by the trial Court and I see no reason to interfere with the same.

¶54

The allegation against A2 to A4 in the complaint is that they, along with A1, threatened PW.1 that they would not allow her unless she brings gold ornaments, silver articles, furniture and scooter. However, the evidence of PW.1 does not disclose any overt act against A2 to A4 for the alleged demand of additional dowry. It is also not the case of PW.3 that A2 to A4 demanded to bring additional dowry from the parents of PW.1. PW.3 categorically deposed that A1 demanded Rs.6,000/- and they gave Rs.3,000/- to him. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, PW.1 wrote letters to PW.3 informing the ill-treatment by the

¶55

8

¶56

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶57

accused. According to PW.1, for about 10 days, A1 to A4 left her alone and went to Madras and she stayed in her sister‟s house and from there she wrote letters to PW.3. When she is able to write letters to PW.3, she may equally write letters to her parents informing the situation, if she faced cruelty in the hands of the accused. PW.3 deposed that he did not report to anybody about the ill-treatment of accused towards PW.1, which he came to know through the letters and he never went to Karnataka to question the accused and to settle the dispute after receiving Ex.P2 letter. His evidence discloses that he did not even go to police station, but he simply handed over the letters to the father of PW.1. Thus, writing letters Exs.P2 and P3 to PW.3 by PW.1 without informing the ill-treatment to her parents cannot be believed. There was no reference in the charge sheet about the letters said to have been written by PW.1.

¶58

The evidence of PW.2, who is mother of the victim (PW.1), also does not disclose any specific overt act against A2 to A4 with regard to demand of additional dowry and she deposed against A1 only. Though the daughter of PW.1 was examined as PW.4, her evidence does not disclose any illegal demand by A2 to A4.

¶59

9

¶60

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶61

Though in the letters marked as Exs.P2 and P3, PW.1 alleged accusations against A2 to A4, those accusations refer to the usual differences between the parents-in-law and daughter-in-law. Admittedly, PWs.2 and 3 are the interested witnesses and they are not direct witnesses to the alleged incident. As per the evidence of PW.3, one Mucherla Satyavathi, Pedareddi Naidu and his brother Venkata Swamy Naidu took PW.1 to the house of accused and pacified the matter. They are the best persons to speak about their mediation and about the dispute between PW.1 and accused. Thus, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is no way helpful to the prosecution to corroborate the same to the evidence of PW.1.

¶62

Though the prosecution is said to have examined independent witnesses at Karnataka, none of them was examined before the Court. PW.1 herself admitted that she and her husband were living separately from her parents-in-law and their residence is intervened by the river Tungabhadra. It is her evidence that there are houses around her residence and also residence of her parents-in-law, where Telugu people have been residing. PW.1 admitted that her father-in-law (A2) used to give

¶63

10

¶64

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶65

amount to purchase provisions for her and her husband. Thus, her evidence discloses that A2 got more affection towards his son and daughter-in-law and he looked after their welfare.

¶66

As observed supra, no specific overt act has been alleged against A2 to A4 for the alleged demand of additional dowry. PWs.1 and 2 stated that on the demand of accused, PW.1 took Rs.3000/-, silk sarees and other articles from her parents. As per the evidence of PW.1, A1 to A4 demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, but PW.3 stated that A1 demanded Rs.6000/-, but he took only Rs.3000/-. Even, as per their evidence, PW.1 lived with her husband after she took Rs.3000/from her parents for a considerable period. Thus, the demand of additional dowry is disproportionate to the amount said to have been brought by PW.1 from her parents house, and if the accused are more particular about Rs.50,000/-, they would not have allowed PW.1 to their house with a lesser amount of Rs.3000/-. In view of the same, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 498-A IPC against A2 to A4.

¶67

So far as the offence under Section 494 read with 114 IPC is concerned, PW.1 is not a witness to the second marriage, but

¶68

11

¶69

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶70

she came to know about the same through the letter of her sister. The evidence of PW.1 is that soon after receipt of letter from her sister, she, along with her parents, went to Ballari on 01.03.1991 and witnessed the marriage between A1 and A5 at Anjaneya Swamy Temple. She further stated that she found all the accused at the temple while the marriage was going on and by the time they reached the Temple the marriage was completed. The evidence of PW.2 is also on the same lines, but PWs.1 and 2 did not give any complaint against A1 and A5 at Ballari. PWs.1 and 2 could not depose any details of the marriage, except saying that all the accused were present at the temple during the course of marriage between A1 and A5. The prosecution could not collect any evidence from the temple or even did not examine anybody responsible for the management of the temple. But, the prosecution marked certified copy of voters‟ list showing the name of A5 as wife of A1. There is no evidence as to at whose information voters list was prepared. Prosecution failed to establish solmenization of the marriage between A.1 and A.5. The other aspect borne out from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is that they gave representation to the Samatha Mahila Mandali. The evidence of Investigation Officer discloses that they did not

¶71

12

¶72

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1408 of 2008

¶73

examine any personnel of Mahila Mandali. Thus, the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the charge under Section 494 read with 114 IPC against A2 to A4.

¶74

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶75