High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a petitioner to set aside an acquittal of her in-laws. The Court held that evidence fargeted no material to prove harassment beyond reasonable doubt and the revision was not maintained.
Criminal Revision Case No. 1624 of 2009 was 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.
[32se ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1624 OF m09
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the judgment dated 05-05-2009 in C C No 439 of 2004, on the file of the Xlli Additional Chref Metropolrtan Magistraie (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.
Between:
Smt. K. Anuradha, Wo. Sathrsh Kumar Reddy, Aged about 35years, Occ' Private Ernployee R/o ShaikpetNala, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERYDEFACTO COMPLAINANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINAN ]
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO
Counsei for the Respondent No.3: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: OROER
THE TIO {OURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGAR.IUN CRIMII AL REVISION cAsE No. 16 24 of 2O09
ORDER:
This Or ninal Rerrision Case is filed by th er de_facto complainanr: o set aside the judgment OS.O|; ,lOCr9 in C.C.No.439 ol 2OO4 on the file of learned XIIL<:ditional Chief Metropr litan Magistrate, Hyderabad, rv]-r:r.ein the respondents - accused Nos. I and 2 were found tr t guilty for the offen ct s under Section 498_A of the Inrl;:rr_r f,enal Code and Se,:t tns 4 and 6 of the Dor.r,ry prohibitiorr Acr,.
2 The facts in brief as can be gathered from _Ire re:ord available befort the Court are as under
a) On 05.: 1 2003 the petitiorre r _ de_factc, cr:rnl>,airrant has lodged a cr mpraint before the Marakpet poiic.t :ita:ion alleging that t re. marriage ol the petitiont:r - ,-_te_rttcto complainant w rs performed q ith respond(,nt llc,. t accused No.1 a ,d at the time of marriage, Rs.3 la <l.s and gold worth of F;..3 lakhs u,ere given as clorvn,. Att,:r- cw days of marri:tg ., the husband of thc petitioner - :t.:: facto compiainant i.e. r-espondent No. I accused No. I il r(l tis
2
mother i.e., respondent No. 2 _ accused No.2 started harassing the petitioner - d.e-facto complainant for want of additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs. Both the accused and her sister in law have abused her and thrcatened her to send away in case if the additional dowry was not met with. As tlre attempts made by tlrre de-Jacto compt,einil11 to iecure Rs.4 lakhs from her family members were failed, accused Nos. 1 and 2 conhned her in a house and was subjected to severe physical and mental torture.
b) After the petitioner - de-facto complainant has conceived, the accused declined to send her to her parents, house without considering the demand for additional dowry. The father of the d.e-facto complainant has arranged Rs.l lakh and took her for delivery and the petitioner was blessed with a male child. While returning, again father of the de-facto complainant has arranged for one more lakh and handed over to accused. Subsequently, accused Nos.l and 2 have sent the de-facto complainant to her house by taking away her jewellery and other valuables.
3
c) Basin g on the said complaint, a case lLas been registered irg rinst accused Nos. i and 2. After :<_mpletion of investigat: rn, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 ar-rd 2 cognrzance of which was taken ,: n lile as C.C.No.439 (' 2OO4 on the fiie of learned Xlllr.dd;tional Chiel Metrc,p litan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Cha-,3,es under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and ,r,r,.cticns 4 arrd 6 ol the Dowry Prohibition Act r.r,e re franr:ri al3ainst Accused Nos. and2, who denied the same ancl cla_rnred to be tried. Dur ng the course of trial, the prose< u tion has examinecl PW. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 anc I:,2. After completion c prosecution evidence, the a<:c.trrs,:d ,,vere examinecl lrn ler Section 3 13 of the Co<le c,l rlri rrnal Procedure, wl erein the accused Nos.1 and ) |iv; dcnie<l the incrimi.:rc :ing evidence deposed by the Jlo;ecution witnesses :rg iitrst them. Accused Nos. I :LrL,:t 2 got examined DW ; I and 2 on their behalf in support of thcir contentions. r fter considering the oral an<l clo< tr:-ne ntary evidence, the -rial Court found accused Ncrs. I i.r-.d il not guilty ol the ol ences alleged against them.
(
4
a) TriatCourt has acted upon the presumptionsand assumptionswhile findingthe accused not guilty of the offencesallegedagainst them.
Trial Courtfailedto consider the evidencethat the b) accusedhave admittedthat there u'ere differences between the accusedand de-facto complainant'
d) Trial Courtfailed to consider the evidence on record in proPer PersPective
e) Trial Courtacted upon the presumption disbelieving the evidenceof PWl, merely for the reason that PWI and accusedwent to honeymoon immediatelyafter marriage '
)-
5
"v hether the judgment 05.05.2 )09 in C.C.No.439 of 2OO4 on the file rf learned XIII Additional Chiel Me tro P< Litan Magistrate, Hyderaba<l can bt: r :t aside?"
7 . On pc n sal of the grounds of the revisi,)n, the re\rrslon petiti< ler has taken ground as if hc, has 1:rcft:rred
(
6
arl appeal. According to him, learned trial Court should not have disbelieved the evidence of pW I merely for the reason that pWl and accused have gone to honeymoon after their marriage and that evidence of pWs I and. 2 corroborated with the evidence of pW3. It is further submitted that the trial Court should have seen that there are lot of contradictions in the evidence of defence witnesses.
t-
7
appreciatio :1 rf the evidence of the trial Court is s;o a bsurd that i[ the l,idence is appreciated in other,^/a]/, the judgment of t re' trial Court would have been difft rt:nt The trial Court h; s considered the evidence of PWs I to 4 and DWs 1 ancl 1 and Exs. Pl and 2 and conclude r[ th,tt the accused has ot committed any offence. The prirne witness in tl-ris cas: s victim, who is examined as PV/1. While appreciatinll -he evidence of PW 1, the trial l)r:rurt has observed tt 1t there a,re several omisstorrs and contradicticn on material aspects ln respect. o'' alleged harassment rt respect of demand of dou,ry. [t is, a]so observed ttrat PW I has made several improveme tt,s,.,vhich 1{'ere not 1n t rc <:omplaint. It is also recorded that PW 1 coltld trol rrle Ltron anv specific harassment. [t s als,o the casc of PW I that a panchayath was helcl to p,:,rcify the dispute in th, rnonth of Februaqr, 2003 before tl e t:lders likc Rajashck r Reddy, Balaji and Bhaskar ReddT bur they \i'erc not cxirn irLe<l before the Court.
r-
! I
8
! I , I i
PWl has deposed that dowry was given, PW2 did not support the same. Similarly, the trial Court has examined the evidence of PW4 the Investigating Officer. On analyzing the evidence of prosecution, more particularly the evidence of PWs I and 2, this Court has felt that there is no material to conclude that.accused persons have harassed the defactocomplatnant for want of additional dowry. The rule of evidence of so far as criminal case is that upon whom burden lies is expected to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not basing on the probabilities. In the case on hand, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 creates a doubt in respect of alleged harassment made by the accused.
1 l. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that trial Court has rightly concluded that respondents not guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed
9
As a s:<1uel, pending miscellaneous appli,::ations, if
any, shall r;t. nd closed.
Sd/. B. SAWAVATHI DEI'UTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
\
tL --'
SECTION OFFICER
To,
/ll
kam \ X._
HIGH COU TT
DATED: 02'4212423
ORDER
CRLRC.No 1624 of 2009
tl i1 :- S i,1 fl:
.
/,
.l ri
tl B ,llAY z[2l
'x 4.,
! ,.i
:y'
DI"SMISSIN 3 THE CRIMINAL REVI$|CI.J ;ASE
/,n.+
)
\
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial judgment acquitting accused of dowry harassment should be set aside in a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
Whether the evidence on record creates a reasonable doubt to conclude that the accused harassed the complainant for additional dowry.
Whether any procedural or legal error was committed by the trial court while appreciating the evidence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. K. Anuradha
K. Satish Kumar Reddy
Smt K Rajashree
The State of Andhra Pradesh
D.Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
