In this appeal against acquittal, the High Court examined the evidence in a case for adultery under Section 497 IPC. Finding the prosecution evidence vague and lacking conclusive proof, the Court held the acquittal was legal and dismissed the appeal.
The Criminal Appeal filed against the acquittal is dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2331 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:-
The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.361 of 2001 on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for being living in adultery with Smt Munnawar Unnisa Begum, wife of PW.1.
3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 16.01.1995 the accused was caught red-handedly by PW.1 when he was in the company of his wife and lodged a complaint. Then the accused gave an undertaking that he would not interfere with the family affairs of the complainant. Thereafter, wife of PW.1 was enticed with the accused on 19.11.1998, the children of PW.1 also witnessed the same and therefore, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 497 IPC. The Court below after considering the evidence on record found that the accused is not guilty.
4. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Court below is legal?
5. POINT:
It is to be mentioned that the case was instituted on a complaint, dated 29.12.2000 against the accused. In fact from the evidence of PW.1 and the charge sheet right from 1995 the accused continued to have relationship with the wife of PW.1. Even the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 shows that the accused was visiting the house of PW.1, in fact,
the evidence on record and the prosecution case was that the accused has taken away the wife of PW.1. Therefore, it is quite clear that the wife of the complainant was voluntarily moving with the accused. Though PW.1 claims that on 16.01.1995 he has found the accused and his wife together and lodged a complaint, the said complaint is not filed and the alleged undertaking said to have been given by the accused is also not filed. On 15.02.1999 though the wife of PW.1 is said to have left his company and joined the accused no complaint was given. The evidence of PW.2 does not show the factum of adultery though her evidence may create a suspicion about the conduct of the accused. Though PW.2 claims to have seen the accused and her mother together, she could not give the particulars. The evidence on record is very vague and the material complaint, which was said to have been given to the police immediately after the offence and the undertaking given by the accused are not produced and mere visiting of the accused to the house of PW.1 may create suspicion, but it is difficult to believe that an act of adultery has been committed when there is no conclusive evidence but only a suspicion. Therefore, there are no other circumstances to accept the version of the prosecution and the acquittal recorded by the Court below does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date:21-02-2012 INL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused for living in adultery under Section 497 IPC is legal and calls for interference?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State
Accused
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
