The High Court of Telangana dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant-complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a Section 498-A case, upholding the Sessions Judge's finding of no substantial and compelling reasons to interfere.
Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2010 dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending stood closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY ,THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:1227 OF 2010
Crl.Appeal Under Section 372 of Cr-P.C. against the Judgment dated 09-09-2010 in Crl.Appeal No. 129 of 2009 on the file of the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal preferred against the order dated 30{62009 in C.C.No. 217 ot 2OO4 on the file of the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for PCR Cases at Warangal.
Between:
K.Neera.ja @ Rajani, W/o Narsinga Rao, R/o H.No.11-23-1168, Telecom Colony, L.B.Nagar, Warangal. ...APPELLANT/ Complainant
AND
...RESPONDENT/Accused
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLAMP. NO: 1986 OF 20101
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the above Appeal by fixing an early date.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLAMP. NO: 2557 OF 20121
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the Crl.A No-122712O1O"for being mentioned" to recall the orders dt.%.3.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2010 .
The Court delivered the following Judgment :
HON'BLE SRI WSTICEK.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.L227OF 2O1O
JUDGMENT:I
This Criminal Appeal is filed by theappellant-complainant aggrieved by thejudgment datedO9.09.2O10passed in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2OO9 by the learned IAdditionalSessions Judge, Warangal.
2
name of the child. Thereafter, a divorce O.P. was filed by respondent No.2 and he also married again. However, the said divorce O.P. was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the husband. Thereafter, the husband sent some antisocial elements and threatened PWl and her family members. Aggrieved by the same, she lodged a complaint which was registered by the police and charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 498-A ald 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
'9. She made significant developments in her case in so far as she being beaten by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband; vacating the house at Hyderabad; informing harassment to the elders; demand of Rs.5O,OO0/ through elders after the birth of the daughter; she allegedly seeing all the accused in the kitchen room talking to each other contemplating to kiu her by pouring kerosene over her and hnding a kerosene tin and thereby she starting to weep apprehending that all the accused would kill her etc. Similarly PWs 2 & 3 also made significant improvernents in their evidence. The developments in evidence made by PWs 1 to 3 were duly brought on record by the accused. But, the lower Court brushed aside them observing that they are bound to occur even in genuine cases. But, these allegations are regarding acts
3
of serious nature and their omissioncannot be easily ignoredin evaluating evidence ofprosecution witnesses in this case.She has never complained them before,either by filing a complainant with the police or mentioning themin a:rty other previous cases (or petition/counter, as she admitted inthe cross examination) between the appellant and hiswife- Therewas no reference to them from 1996 till the evidencewas recorded in 2005when, for the flrst time, these wild allegationswere made".
4
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in
reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows:
"70. In the lbht of the aboue, the High Court and other oppellate Courts shouw fo ala the uell settted pinciples crystaltized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouenule or othenrlse disturb the tiat aurt;s aquittal:
A num.ber of instances aise in which the appellate court utould Lra.ue 'uery substantial and. ampelting reasons" to d$cqrd the tiql court,s decision. "Very substantial and. compelling reasons" exist uthen: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the lacts is palpabfu urong: ii) TIE triat couft's d.ecision wrts based on an erroneous uieut of latu; iii) The trial court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue miscariage oJ justice";
I 1202218 Supreme Courtcases 536
'12008110 sup.emeCourt cases450
5
iu) TIE entire opproachof he trial court in dealing urith the euidence uaspatentlg illegal; ' v) fiti tittl court'sjudgnent uasmanifestlAunjustand unreasonable:
vi) The tial court hosignoredtle' eui.d'enceor mi'sreodthe material euidence orhas ignoredmateial documeflts like dAingdeclarations/ repoft of the baryi:;hcexPefl,etc.
vii) This list is inten-d"ed.to be iLhtstratiue' not ertlaustiue'
lligh Coutts/ aPPellatecouttsmtstrule in Jauourof the accused " conuiction -the
1 O. In th,: result, theCriminalAppealisdismissed Consequentiy. miscellaneouspetitions, ifany, pending, shall
stands closerl
//TRUE COPY'/
SdI. B. SATYAVATHI OEPUTY REGISTRARI r (/\ ,- .Y
sEdnciu oFFlcER
To,
1 - The I AdditionalSessions Judge, Warangal'
KuUghw
HIGH COURT
DATED:2811O12O24
ORDER
Crl.Appeal .No.1227 ot2O1O
E OF T€
FJ
,.i
ov
e N.
o !
l{
\\ +
Fc
$
c/H yO
DISMISSING THti CRL.APPEAL
(1 .o?*a
*
a
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are very substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court order quashing the conviction of the accused in a Section 498-A case.
Whether the allegation of enhanced negligence in improving the case during trial warrants reversal of acquittal without corroboration.
K.Neera.ja
The State of Andhra Pradesh
K.Narsinga Rao
K. SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
