Allowed

Dasari Anjaiah v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Feb 2023CRLRC/1603/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court, handling a criminal revision against a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, observed excessive delay. While declining to disturb the conviction due to corroborated evidence, it reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, closing the bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; bail bond closed.

Dasari Anjaiah Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1603 OF 2009

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P,C, against the orders dated 16-09-2009 in Crl.A.No. 63 of 2008 on the file of the lll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Anjaiah, S/o late Rajaiah, age 26 years, Occ: Coolie, Fl/o Gangipalli, V/o Manakondur lvlandal, Karimnagar Dist.

¶10

...PETITIONEFYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF A.P., Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. D SANGEETHA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.16O3 of 2OO9

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Revision Case is hled against the Judgment of the learned lll-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl.A.No.63 of 2OO8 dated 16.09.2O09. The Criminal Appeal was preferred against the Judgment of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in C.C.No.36 of 2OOT dated 03.07.2008.

¶21

The marriage of one Dasari Swaroopa (P.W. i ) was performed with one Dasari Anjaiah (A.1). At the time ol marriage her parents gave Rs.25,0OO/- and other household articles to A. I and A.2 as dowry and they are blessed with two daughters and they are aged about 9 and 7 years respectively at the time of filing complaint. After their marriage, about one year prior to filing of the complaint, A.1 married one Kanakam Rajitha (A.3) in Shivalayam temple situated at Kothapalli Viltage. Since then A. I along with his mother Dasari Komurama (A.2) started harassing P.W. 1 physically and mentally demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2O,O00/ - from her parents and they necked her out from their house. A Panchayath ',r,as also

¶22

¶23

conducted before elders namely Kanakam Komuraiah and Kanakam Pedda Pochaiah. Wherein, A. l and A.2 agreed to look after her well, as such she along with her children^joined matrimonial house and lived for six months. Later they continued the same harassment and necked out her from their house on i8.10.2006. From then onwards she started residing at her parent's house along with her children. A.1 left the house and started living at Karimnagar along with his second wife A.3. Hence, she gave complaint before police for taking necessary action and the same u,as registered as Crime No.156 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 494 ot I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶24

The trial Court cxamined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to P5. P.W.1 is the victim and P.W.2 is her father, P.Ws.3 & 5 are elders and P.Ws.4 & 6 are neighbours, but all of them turncd hostile and Investigation Ofhcer was not examined, but thc trial Court totally relying upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and her fathcr, convicted the accused A. 1 under Section 498-A of l.P.C and Section 4 of Dou,ry Prohibition Act and also sentenced him to undergo simplc imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. I ,0OO/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused A.2 and A.3

¶25

)

¶26

were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A of LP.C and Sections 3 & 4 of I.P.C and Section 494 of I.P.C respectively and are acquitted. The charge against A.1 under Section 494 I.P.C was not proved, as such A. I to A3 were found not guilty for the said offence and are acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction, A. I preferred an appeal before the appellate Court and the same was dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

¶27

The appellant/A. 1 contended that ingredients to constitute the said offence are not proved by any legal or reliable evidence. The testimony of P.Ws. 1& 2 is highly interested and there are discrepancies in their evidence in material particulars. P.Ws.3 to 6 are independent witnesses but they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws. I & 2 was not corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6. Morcover, Investigation Officer was also not examined and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. A.3 was acquitted on the same basis therefore he is also entitled for the said benelit.

¶28

¶29

Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also public prosecutor and perused the entire record.

¶30

Now, it is for this Court to decide whether there is any error on the face of the record in the Judgment of the learned District Judge in Crl.A.No.63 of 2OO8 in which C.C.No.36 oi 2O07 was conhrmed, if so to u,hat extent.

¶31

There is no dispute rcgarding the fact that de-facto compiainant is the wife of A. 1 and A.2 is her mother-in-law. Afte r the marriage they lived happily for one year and they are also blessed lr'ith two children aged about 9 & 7 years respectively at the time of f-rlir-rg complaint. It clearly shows that both of thern livcd toBcther' for about 10 years. The de-facto complainant stated that her husband married A.3, as such her husband and mother-in-law insisted her to bring additional dowry and neckcd her out. As such, Panchayat was conducted in the presence of elders of the Village. In pursuance of the same, A. I and A.2 agreed to look after her well as such she along with her children joined company of her husband. Though, thcy lived together for six months they started harassing her and sent her out of thcir house on 18.10.2O06, as

¶32

¶33

such she gave complaint against Accused under Sections 498-4 & 494 of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. The evidence of P.W. I was corroborated with the evidence of her father P.W.2. Both of them stated that at the time of marriage P.W.2 gave Rs.25,OO0/- to A. I as dowry.

¶34

P.W. 1 in her cross-examination stated that initially her father gave Rs. l5,O0O/- and again gave Rs.1O,OOO/-, but they have not stated in rvhose presence the said amount was given and how he securcd the said amount. P.W. I in her Chiel examination stated that her father gave Rs.25,00O/- as dowry at the time of marriage , but later deviated from her earlier version and stated that initially her father gave Rs. 15,0O0/- and again Rs. 1O,0OO/-. Though the trial Court examined P.Ws.3 to 6 as independent witnesses, all of them turned up hostile, they did not corroborate the version of P.Ws.I & 2. As P.W.2 is the father of P.W.l who performed marriage, he denied the version of P.W.l and stated that he gave Rs.25,0OO/- at the time of marriage, but later they demanded for additional dowry of Rs.20,0O0/- and harassed his daughter even after the Panchayat. As the-y were demanding for additional dowry and nccked out her from their house, she liled complaint. The entire cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 & 2 focused on the non-

¶35

¶36

performance of marriage between A. 1 and A.3. Though, P.W.1 stated that she came to know about the marriage between A. 1 and A.3 and it was supported by P.W.2, they have not Iiled any scrap of paper to substantiate their version, as such the trial Court rightly acquittcd the accused A. 1 and A.3 for the charges under Section 494 l.P.C. As there is no corroborate evide nce against A.2, Accused A.2 was also found not guilty but for the same evidence A. I was imprisoned to undergo simple imprisonment for I ycar and {lne of Rs. I,0OO/-.

¶37

The learned Counscl for the petitioner stated that complaint was given on 18. 1O.20O6 and Charge Sheet was filed on 22.07.2006. The trial Court convicted A.'l on 03.O7.2OO8 and it was confirmed by the appellate Court on 16.O9.20O9. The presen[ Crirrrinal Rcvisiorr Cetse is filed in the year 20O9 and it came up for hearing in thc year 2022. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K.Venna Vs. Central Bureau of lrutestigation, in which it was held as follows:

¶38

"Sessions Court sentenced the accused to igorous imprisonment for 1^t./2 lJears uith a fine of Rs.S,OOO/ - each under the charged secfions, 10 years taken for matter to be registered" ns Sessions Case atrd tia! slso took almost 1O gears and matter took another 1O years in High Court to be finally disrn i.s.serl. Consideing the special reasons

¶39

¶40

¶41

i.e, age arul health condition of accused and as he already und,ergone phgsical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about 30 Aears the substantiue senten(E of impisonmetTt was reduced to peiod alreadg undergone and imposed Jlne of Rs.50,0OO/ - to be deposited utithin 3 months in defoult imprisonment for 6 months and on paAment of fine, bail bond stands cancelled."

¶42

ln anothcr decision in the case o[ Asholc Kutnar Vs. State (Delhi Adrnn) in which it was held that the ammission of offence of theft Luas committed in 1971 and the Judgment was deliuered in 1980. The conuiction utas under Section 411 IPC. tn uieut of the long protracted litigation reduced tfe sentene to the peiod alreadg undergone bg the conuict.

¶43

ln another decision in the case of Sha.ntan Kumar Vs. Sto:te oJ

¶44

U.P, the commission of offence u.tas tn tle 1968 ond the Judgment was deliuered h 1985, the acansed uas conuicted under Sectiorts 467 artd 471 IPC. Considering the long delag in the litigatiort as one of the factors sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶45

I O. Cor.rsidering thc above citations and arguments of the revision petitioner herein this Court finds it just and reasonable to rcduce scntencc o[ one ycar to the period already undergone

¶46

¶47

by the accused during the pendency o[ the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶48

In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowcd modifying the conviction and sentencc to the period already undergone by the accused as he already paid the fine amount, his Bail bond stands closed.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

To,

¶52

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUW REGIStrRAR //TRUE COPY/I . / sEcTtoN {rrrcea

¶53