The single-judge criminal bench dismissed the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal of accused persons tried for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Crl.A. No. 1916 of 2004
DATED: 28.02.2012
Between:
The Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And
1. K. Appalaraju and three others .. respondents
JUDGMENT:-
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 246 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli.
The case of the prosecution is that PW1 was married to A1 and A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is the brother of A1. The marriage was performed on 24.04.1994 and at that time, some presentations and cash of Rs.5,000/- were given. PW1 and A1 lived at Rangupuram and got a female child. A1 did not properly treat PW1 and he was finding fault with PW1 for giving birth to a female child. During February, 1999, he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- to be brought from her parents for payment of L.I.C. premium and she did not get that money and at the instance of A2 to A4, A1 abused her and beat her. She wrote a letter to her parents on 24.06.1999. Thereafter, the parents of PW1 came and took her and a complaint was given to the police. The police have, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused person for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court below, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty and acquitted.
The point for consideration is whether the acquittal recorded by the Court below is legal and sustainable?
Point:- Evidently, PWs.2 to 5 are not eye-witnesses to any harassment and in fact the version of PW1 that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was demanded for payment of L.I.C. premium is not supported by her father or brother since there is inconsistency in their statement. It is to be noted that except this demand after a long time of the marriage there is no other
allegation of harassment and
ill-treatment for bringing of more dowry by PW1. According to her father, she was beaten and she claimed to have written a letter on 24.06.1999 and she claimed to have received bleeding injuries and the said letter was not produced. There was no medical evidence also to prove the said injuries. Added to that in spite of the serious complaint and also the information said to have been given in the letter, no action was immediately taken. The Court below held that
non-examination of the material witnesses and non-production of the said letter and also the delay, are fatal to the prosecution case and there is any amount of doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case and gave benefit of doubt. I do not find any error in appreciation of evidence by the Court below.
Accordingly, there are no merits and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
________________________ RAO, J 28th February, 2012
N.R.L. NAGESWARA
bcj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused is legal and sustainable.
Whether the appreciation of evidence by the Court below regarding lack of medical evidence and missing letter warrants setting aside the acquittal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Public Prosecutor
K. Appalaraju and three others
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
