Allowed

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLRC/34/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed by an accused acquitted of other charges. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt regarding dowry harassment due to lack of specific allegations in the charge sheet and doubted the neutrality of prosecution witnesses. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the convicted offence. The fine is returned and bail bonds are

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

Bail slip:^petitioner releas-ed- on bair as per court order dated lstoilliilail Crl.R.C.Mp No.57 of 2015 in Crr.nid. sqiiols

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURTfOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

rHE HoNouRABLE SRr rrrf5.ti=l[tovARApu RAJE.H*AR RAo

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 34 OF 2015

¶6

Cdminal Revision Case 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C against the Judgment made in crl.A.No.1'r0 0f 2011 dated Br1r2o15 0n the fire of rhe court of the V Additionar sessions Judge at Kothagudem preferred against the order made in cc No'196/2009 dared 4t7r2011 0n the fire of the court of the , Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

¶7

Between:

¶8

n.r**

¶9

"rJlo"Tf "^{# il31i. j1?"ij?. J3trHi,*, Ri/oRa m va ra m, punj a bsad da,} ...CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONERY AND APPELLANT/ AccUSED [,io.i

¶10

AND

¶11

I?Sf#tE Sll'iffiii;,!,ej,gtv^{its Pubric Prosecutor, Hish courr} ar Hvderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶13

CRLRcMP. NO:57OF 2015

¶14

Petition under Section.397(1).of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum.of grounds or ctminafftevision case, the High court may be preased to susoend tn6.ruJgmenip;;;; c.c. No.196 of 200-9, oateo 04-07-2011 on fire of rhe.., Addid;;;i ird#i'Masistrat" of First crass at Kothagudem by granting bail.

¶15

For the Petitioner: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION cAs^{E No. 34 OF 2Ol5}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Crimi nal Revision Case is^{hled underSections} 397 and 40 I of Code of the Criminal^{Procedure(for short,} 'Cr.P.CJ, aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.01.2015^passedin Crl. Appeal No. I 10 of 20 1 I on the file of the V^{Additional Sessions} Judge at Kothagudem, by modifying the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No. 196 of 2009 dt.04.07.2071 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate ol First Class, Kothagudem (hereinafter referrcd to as'the Court belowJ.

¶24

The brief lacts of the case are as follows:

¶25

That the marriage of the revision petitioner/accused No.1 was performed with the de-facto complainant about 5 years back by giving dowry and other household articles. Out of u,edlock, the dc-facto complainant and the revision petitioner/accused No.l were blessed with two daughters. Later, the revision petitioner/ accused No. I started harassing the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry from het parents with activc instigation o[ accused No. 2 and 3 (younger brothcr and

¶26

RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 20i5 mother of accuscd No tl and he developed illegal iretimacy with another woman anci also threatened the dc-iacto complainant to kiil her if she lails to bring additionat dowry and the marriage of the revision petrtioner/accused No. I u,ill be performed with the elder sister of yolrnger brother,s u,ife for .r, hich the de_facto complainant haC rvarted ilitl_r rhe tond hope that the harassment in the hands of accused wrll be stopped in future but there is no change in thc attitLldc oi :rcc:uscd. Ijence she filed a complaint with the policc 1o t;ll(c lc(, r.tr].action.

¶27

To prove their- c:rse, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 ancl got m:rrkcrl ilx.pl to p4_ No material objects lvere markcd. No evidcncc ryas aclduced on bchall of the Accused.

¶28

5' The Trial cou. r-r'on perusing the nraterial ava able on record, con'ictecl all tlrr, :rccused for the punishable offence under section 4 9g A IpC a nci sr:n tcnccd them to undergo simple imprisonment fr>r a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in def:rult. to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The remand periorl undergone by the accused, if any, was ordered to bc- set off un<ler. section 428 Cr.p.C.

¶29

¶30

RRN,J Crl. RC No.34 of 2015

¶31

6 Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the accused prelerred an appeal vide Crl.A No. ll0 of 2Oll before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem (for short, ,the lower Appellate Court') and the lower Appellate Court was pleased to partly allow the appeal vide judgment dt.0g.01.2015 by confirming the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/ accused No. 1, and acquitting the accused No.2 and 3. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is fired by the revision petitioner/ accused No. l.

¶32

7 Heard learned Counsel appearing for the revision

¶33

pe tttlo ne r/ accuse d No. I and the learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behall of the respondent/complainant Perused the entire material available on record.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No. 1 contended that the judgments of both the courts berow are erroneous and both Courts have kept aside the fact and crucial admissions of p\M- I in her cross-examination that she has not mentioned the details o[ the dowry i.e. the amount given to the revision petitroner/ accused No. I towards dowry, the narne of the woman with whom the revision petitioner/ accused No. 1 w,as having an alleged affair, and also that she failed to mention about

¶35

RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015

¶36

the alleged harassment meted out by the accused. He further contended rhar rhc rr itncsscs are inlcresteci anci no independent/ evcwitness \ ruis examined on behalf of the prosecution, as such, the r:asr: of the prosecution $,as not proved. He also stressed the fact thar PW,6/ Investigating Officer admitted that PW- 1 did not statc the nraterial allegations in Ex. P 1 report. Accordingly, prayed to alkrt the criminai revision case and set aside the judgments passed l:,i. both Courts below.

¶37

Per contra. thc lr'irntcd Additional Public Prclsecutor appearing for the responclcrrt/cornltlainant had contcnded that the Trial Court was justificrl in convicting and sentencing the accused and no intcrfcrenct: rs rcquired by this Court. It u,as also contended that there are s1tr.r:ific allegations rvitl-r regard to the amount of dov ry and the :r lLegations make out a case under section 498-A of IPC and as sr rch, the revision pctitioner/ accused No. 1 is guilty ol thc offence r'harged and pravcd to dismiss the present case.

¶38

It is seen lrom tlrc record that accused No.2 and 3 were acquitted by thc lou,er Appellate Court b1' cxtending the benefit of the d()ubt on thc gr-ound that specific allcgations rnrere not made against them and tlrr, e,.,rdence of the rr.itne sscs ,i/as not

¶39

¶40

RRN,.J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015

¶41

corroborated and on the main ground that the content of Ex.Pl was not stated by PW- I whereas it was narrated by PW- 1 and as such, PW-2 might have named accused No.2 and 3 in a routine manner. But perusing the entire judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it is observed that there is no independent analysis or reasoning given as to how the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/ accused No. I carnot be interfered with. The lower Appellate Court's observation with respect to the revision petitioner/ accused No.I is as follows:

¶42

"22. Holever, the observation of the trial court in awarding scntence against Accused No. I is considered in para 25 in between the citation trvo lines.

¶43

.......Regarding case against Accused No.1 the evidencc ol PWs t and 2 couplcd wtth thc evidence of pws-3 and _l u,ho are alleged to ha'e been acted as elders at the timc of Iranchayat ir.r rvhich pW. I and accused No. 1 lead marita_l lile for one week and thereafter t]le attitude of Accused No. I towards pW. 1 not yet changed and he demanded her. The cvidence of pWs.3 and 4 supports thc case for acted as panchayatdars. Admittedl],, PW. I has been residing at her parents, house and PW.2 is her father was working as an employee in Singareni and tLre report was got presented by him to the police by obtaining signature of pW. I as per her evidence in cross examination. Horvever, in a case under section 498-4 IPC, the living separation will leads to cause some differences in between the couple and the reasons best krown to thc investigating agency in hling the case for the offencc punishable under section 498-AIrc."

¶44

A bare reading of the above goes to show that no concrete anal1,sis and explanation is given by the lower Appellate

¶45

RRN,J Crl.RC No 34 of 201.5

¶46

Court and the lower Appellate Court in its complete judgment has referred to PWs.3 and 4 as alleged panchayatdars. As such, there is a reasonable doubt creatcd u,ith regard to the very panchayat which the prosecution claims to have taken place. Further, both the Courts bclow have rgnored the fact that Ex.p1 docs not contain all the material allegations and specific details as stated by PW- I in her. chief affidavit. Admittedl-v, the con tents in Ex. p 1 wcre got stated by pw-2 .rrd not pw- i . Even for a second , assuming that ali the mate,rial allegations and specific details $.cre not reflected in Flx. p i as it was not pW- I u,h() stated it and there is no scope for impro'crncnt of thc case, the szrme cannot be considered as rit least the I (r 1 Cr.p.C statt:mcnts ought to havc borne all the material allegations and specific dctzrils. It can be safely concluderl that thc casc of the prosecutlon was improved through the eviclence of pW_ I and the same cannot be permitted,

¶47

L2. Another point rvhich is to be stressed is that, though there are allegations ir-i Ex p 1 that dou,ry, was given, additional dovvn. 11,45 demanded, the revision petitioner/A.No.l rvas involved in an illicit relationship u,ith ilnothcr \voman, thc accused persons beat PW- 1 and threatened t,) l<ill her if shc does not bring aci.itional do,.t/ry,: pW-6 alter .(rlnpletion of the rnvestigation. has

¶48

¶49

RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015

¶50

filed charge sheet only for the offence under section 49g_A IpC, meaning thereby that all other allegations were not substantiated.

¶51

It is pertinent to observe here what the Trial Court observed in the two lines, as stated by the lower Appellate Court in para No.22 of its judgment. The two lines state, "But in the resent ca,se in hand harassment aises mentall b inttn Put. I 's colour and hauina illeqal intimacu and. threateninq. "

¶52

There is absolutely no justification ro this observation leading to the conclusion made by the Trial court. There was no allegation with regard to the revision peritioner/ accused No. I harassing PW-l with regard to her colour and there is no proof other than the self-serving resLimon-y of pW_ I with regard to the alleged illicit relationship u,ith a woman. Even the name of such womarl, existent or not, was later only at the time of chief evidence, mentioned as Sudha. With regard to threatening, no charge is framed against the accused under section 506 of IpC.

¶53

Further. the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that amount u,as demanded by the accused for the sake of additional dou,ry, and the same can be concluded bv perusing the chargesheet itself as after the investigation, Sections

¶54

¶55

RRN,I Crl.llc No.34 of 2015

¶56

3 and 4 of the Dou.ru.- Prol'rilrition Act were also not invoked. As sucll, when thcre is no harassment related to dowry, and the other ailegatrons arc being crcated/ improved at a lzrter stagc, the beneht of the doubt can be safely given in favour of the revision pet il ioner/ acc used No. l.

¶57

In light of the forcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that thc prosecution tailed to prove Lhe guilt ot the rcvision pctitioner/ accu scr,l No.1 beyond all reasonablc doubt, mear-ring therebr,, the judgments of both the Cour,.s belou, against thc rcvision petitioner/ accus<,d No.1 are crroneous and are liable to be set aside.

¶58

i5. hr the result, thc Criminal Rer.ision C)ersc is allorvecl. The judgment dated 08.01 .2015 in Crl.A.No. 1 l0 o[ 20 i l on [he fllc ol the V-Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem is and the .judgment^{in C.C.No. 196 of 2(109 dated} 04-O7-2Ol 1 on the fite o[ the II Additional Judge Magrstrate of First Class, Kothagudem, are herebv set aside and the rcvision petitioner/a( cused No. 1 is acquitted of the convicted offence. The fine amount paid by the rcvision petitionc-r/ accused No I shall be returned to him and the bail boncls of lhe r-e'isro'r ,c: r_itioner/ accused No.1 shalt stand cancclled after cxoiry of thc alrpcal period.

¶59

¶60

RRN,J Crl.RC No.34 of 2015

¶61

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous appiications, if any,

¶62

pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶63

Sd/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i tu

¶64

SECTION OFFICER

¶65

To 'L The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District. (with records)

¶66

The V Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶67

The Superintendent, Central Prison, at Waiangal_

¶68

The Station House Of{icer, ll Town police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶69

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶70

One CC to Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Advocate tOpUCl

¶71

Two CD Copies

a-t-

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/06/2023

ORDER

/< g S IAr€
L
v.Z
'a
C)
[1 []B
'<br>i D

¶78

CRLRC.No.34 of 2015

¶79

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C
{r>
o
-.')
5<br>

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Korlapati Pradeep Kumar, Khammam Dt., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Ch.Sathi Reddy S/o Yella Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Cement Corporation of India Vs The Union of India

Isharath Banu Vs State of A.P. rep. by Secretary

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Vs Manda Laxmi

Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Vs Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Adilabad

J Hari Venkata Vaddi Babu, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs R.Shekhar, R.R. Dist 7 Anr.