Dismissed

The Public Prosecutor v. Chada Mahender reddy (A-1)

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012CRLA/1364/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The court held that lack of proof for a valid second marriage justified the acquittal for Section 494. Regarding Section 498-A, the court found the lower court's reasoning improper as cruelty sufficed, but dismissed the appeal without enhancing sentences.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittals under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC upheld.

The Public Prosecutor Vs Chada Mahender reddy (A-1) — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1364 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

The appeal is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 and 10 in Calendar Case No.152 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parkal.

¶5

2. The accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶6

3. The case of the prosecution is PW.1 is wife of A.1 and at the time of marriage, dowry and other articles were given. But, subsequently, A.1 along with his mother A.2 started harassing and beating PW.1. They also found fault with the complexion of PW.1 and also not begetting children and ultimately A.1 is said to have married A.4 on 11.04.2001. On the complaint of PW.1, a case was registered and the police after investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 8 to 10 not guilty of offences under Sections 494 IPC and also found A.1 and A.2 not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and acquitted them for their respective offences and also found A.1 and A.2 are guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC and convicted them for the said offence. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

4. The point for consideration is whether the judgment of the lower Court acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC is legal and sustainable?

¶8

5. POINT:

¶9

So far as the relationship between the parties is concerned there is no dispute. When the 2^nd marriage is attributed to A.1, naturally it is for the prosecution to prove the said marriage. But, the evidence on record did not establish the above fact and consequently, there is no proof of performance of valid second marriage between A.1 and A.4 and therefore, acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC does not call for any interference.

¶10

6. However, so far as the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the lower Court has found that PW.1 was not liked but for the differences or ill-will, there is no reason for PW.1 to leave the marital home. Having found so, the lower court found that the demand for dowry is not there and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. But, however, the Court below accepted the evidence of PW.1 that she was beaten by A.1 and A.2 and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. In fact, to attract an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, the demand for dowry alone is not necessary and cruelty is a willful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to the life or limb or health of the woman. It can be either mentally or physically. Therefore, when the prosecution case about the dislike towards PW.1 is admitted and accepted and there is also said to be physical attack accepted by the lower Court, the reasoning for exclusion of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not proper. But, however, the fact remains that A.1 was convicted to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine, whereas A.2

¶11

was sentenced to pay fine. Even if the conviction under Section 323 IPC is now to be converted under Section 498-A IPC, no useful purpose will be served as this Court is not inclined to enhance the sentence of imprisonment.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶13

___________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶14

Date:03.02.2012 INL

The Public Prosecutor v. Chada Mahender reddy (A-1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Prosecutor v. Chada Mahender reddy (A-1)

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 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Vs Radheshyam Soni

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md.Habeeb Ali

The Drugs Inspector, Cuddapah Vs M/s. Graflh chemicals and Veternary Products

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs D.Ramulamma

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs D.Chinna Malla Reddy

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K. Lakshmi Kanthamma