Dismissed

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Kasolla Srinivas

Telangana HC19 Aug 2011CRLA/1199/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State against an acquittal under Section 498-A IPC. The Court upheld the trial Court's finding that prosecution witnesses were not credible due to lack of corroborative panchayat evidence and familial ties to the defendants, confirming that there is no perversity in the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The acquittal dated 20.06.2005 in C.C.No.280 of 2002 under Section 498-A IPC was confirmed.

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kasolla Srinivas — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

Criminal Appeal NO.1199 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 19.08.2011

¶4

BETWEEN: State of A.P Rep.by the Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And Kasolla Srinivas and others .. Respondent

¶5

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

Criminal Appeal NO.1199 OF 2006

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

This criminal appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur in C.C.No.280 of 2002 acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶9

2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.

¶10

3. The first respondent is the husband of PW.1-defacto complainant, respondents 2 and 3 are the parents and respondent No.4 is the brother of the first respondent.

¶11

4. It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1, that at the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards purchase of motorcycle and also some household articles. The marriage was consummated and the couple lived happily for some time, thereafter respondent No.1 started harassing PW.1 demanding additional dowry. As PW.1 expressed her inability to fulfill the demand, the first respondent and the remaining respondents continued harassment. On the occasion of first Deepavali, PW.1 was brought by her brother to her parents’ house, but the first respondent did not take care of her as additional

¶12

dowry had not been paid. When the brother of PW.1 took her to the house of the respondents 1 to 4, they did not allow her to enter into their house demanding additional dowry. Therefore, the brother of PW.1 brought her to their house.

¶13

5. Subsequently on a report lodged by PW.1 at Kagaznagar Police Station on 05.10.2002, a case in Crime No.102 of 2002 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered. The offence was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed against A1 to A4.

¶14

6. In the course of the trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 and P2. On behalf of the defence, DW 1 was examined.

¶15

7. PWs.1 to 3 have stated in their depositions before the trial Court about the respondents demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, not allowing PW.1 to their house and raising dispute before the elders. The evidence was not believed by the learned trial Court considering the facts viz. that as per the custom prevailing in the community, the marriage has to be performed at the parents’ house of the bride, but in the instant case it was performed at Nizamabad i.e at the parents’ house of bridegroom. The learned trial Court was of the view that the mother of PW.1 was not capable of paying amount of dowry of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards purchase of motorcycle and also keeping in view the financial status of the mother of PW.1, the accused might not have demanded any dowry from them. The defence version is that PW.1 was suffering from ill-health, they got her treated in the hospitals at Nizamabad and Hyderabad and she invented a false theory that they harassed her for

¶16

additional dowry.

¶17

8. As per the prosecution version, the sister of PW.1 and her brother-in-law were residing at Nizamabad and the incident also took place at Nizamabad. They are the crucial witnesses to the alleged offence, but they were not examined by the prosecution. Despite the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, a panchayat was convened at the house of the elder sister of PW1 at Nizamabad. Only general and sweeping allegations regarding demand of additional dowry were made, no eyewitness regarding any such demand of additional dowry was examined by the prosecution. For these reasons, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses and acquitted the respondents/accused.

¶18

9. In an appeal against the acquittal, this Court will not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court unless they are perverse or that they are not based on evidence. Merely because another view is possible, this Court is not supposed to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In this case, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is based on reasoning and evidence on record.

¶19

10. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur in C.C.No.280 of 2002 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 498-A is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

¶20

_________________ Date: 19.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm

¶21

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶22

Criminal Appeal NO.1199 OF 2006

¶23

DATE: 19.08.2011

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Kasolla Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Kasolla Srinivas

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

The State of a.P., Vs Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Bolisetti Nageswara Rao

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

Y.Eswrappa Vs v.Ramana and 5 Others

Surampally Prabhakar Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

State of a.P., Vs Mannepalli China Atchaiah