Dismissed

G.Sandhya Rani , M.Sandhya Rani v. the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Telangana HC3 Dec 2024CRLRC/2381/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was dismissed as there were no merits to the revision which sought to set aside the appellate Court's order confirming the acquittal of respondents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision case is dismissed.

What the court decided

G.Sandhya Rani , M.Sandhya Rani Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32se l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2381 OF 2013

¶7

Crimrnal Revision filed under Section 397 & 4O1 of Cr.P.C., against^the Judgment dated: 23.08.2013 in Crl.A.No.18612011 on the file of the Court^{of the} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar,^{confirming the} Judgment dated: 20.09.20'l 1^passed in CC No.317/2009 on^{the file of the Courtof} Vl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.Sandhya Rani, @ M.Sandhya Rani, Wo M.V.Ranga Chary^{Occ. Housewife} R/o H.No.75l3RT Flat No.302 Satya Hanuman Residency S.R.Nagar^Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP., Hyderabad. RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT

¶11

2 M.V.Rangachary, S/o Late M.Sitarama Chary^{Occ:S-oftwareengineerin} Eschelori Telecilmmunication lnc.Twin cities MN, 370^{2no Avenue STE,900,} NIN 55402-2489 USE, R/o 1328 Lake Street NE APr^22O Hopkins,^{MN 55343} United States of America N/o Plot No.145/B Green^{Fields ColonyNear} Kannajiguda Alwal R.R.District, Presenlty R/o H.no.3269^{BHEL, Phasell} I\IIGH Phase ll Vidyuthnagar Phase ll BHEL Hyderabad.

¶12

Mangavelli Venu Gopala Chary, S/o Late M.Sita^{Rama Chary Occ.Private} Employee R/o Plot No.145/8, Green Fields Colony^{Near KanajigudaAlwal} R R.District

¶13

Mangavelli Kamala, Wo Late M.Sita Rama Chary Occ:^{HousewifeR/o Plot} No.145/8, Green Fietds Colony Near Kanajiguda Alwal Ranga^{ReddyDrstrrct}

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Varalakshmi Satish,^rep SRl. CH Ravindra Babu

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent no.1: Mr. E.GANESH,^{Assistant Public Prosecutor}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent no.2 to 4: --

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

l I :, I I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMTNAL REVISION CASE No.23a1 oF 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is liled by the petitioner/ de facto complzrinant against the judgment dated 23.0g.2O13 in Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2Oll on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Clberabad, at L.B. Nagar (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 20.09.20 r 1 in c-c.No.3 r7 of 2oo.9 on the fire of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, R.R.District (for short, "the trial Court").

¶25

2 Heard Ms.Varalakshmi Satish, learned counsel representing Mr.Ch.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for tJle petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I -State

¶26

The brief facts ol the case are that petitioner and respondent No.2 married each other on 21.02.1997 at N.V.R. Kalyana Mandapam, at Tenali, Guntur District as per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a son during their wed lock. The petitioner had stated that her parents gave an amount of Rs.3,OO,O00/- as stridhan savings, house hold articles and one

I I

gold chain to respondent No.2 at the time of marriage. After marriage, respondent Nos.3 and 4 subjected the petitioner to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowry. After some time respondent No.2 left to U.S.A. and both of them stayed together for some time. Later, as the petitioner conceived, respondent No.2 sent her away to India by stating that the baby should be born in India; but he failed to take her wife and baby to U.S.A. and neglected to maintain them; further respondent Nos.3 and 4 subjected her to mental cruelt5r. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 4 frled divorce application before the concerned criminal Court and that respondent No.2 insisted her to go away from in-laws house. Unable to bear such harassment, the petitioner left the house of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and filed a private complaint before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal and prayed to refer the case to police Basing upon the complaint, the Court referred the case to P.S Alwal to investigate and ltle report.

¶31

Basing on the complaint referred by the Court, the S.l. of Police LW5, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2OO9 for the offences under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, l86O (for short, "1.P.C.") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Pnohibition Act, 196 1 (for short, "DP Act") r/w Section 34 of I.P.C

¶32

¶33

I I I { ii I t

¶34

and entrusted the C.D. Iile to LW6, S.I. of police to conduct further investigation and file charge sheet against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.l to 3 under the above sections. Hence, the charge.

¶35

On hearing both sides and upon considering the material, the trial court took cognizance for the offences under sections 498-A;506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dp Act. Later, respondent Nos.2 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charge under Section 24O of Cr.p.C. for the offences under Sections 498-4. and 506 rlw 34 of I.p.C., Sections 3 ald 4 of DP Act were framed, read over and explained to respondent Nos.2 to 4 about the contents in Telugu for which they had denied the commission of offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶36

The trial Court upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentar5r evidence acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.p.C., Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.2O2 of 2Ol l . The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the said Appeal confirming

¶37

¶38

the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same,^the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended tl.at the appellate Court had erroneously dismissed the Appeal, stating that the petitioner failed to hle the Medical Certificate regarding the cruelly meted out by her. She further stated that^the appellate Court had discarded the independent testimonies^of PWs.3 and 4 and basing on surmises and conjectures,^{passed the} impugned judgment. Therefore, she seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶40

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that^the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had rightly^and appropriately passed their respective^judgments and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned^judgment.

¶41

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.l to 5 and marked Exs.Pl to P3. On behalf of the defence, DWl was examined ald Exs.Dl to D9 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the occular evidence of PWs.l to 5, the trial Court observed that there is inconsistency with the oral testimonies of PWs.2 to 5 with the oral testimony of PWl coupled with oral

¶42

¶43

testimony of DWl^{and documentar5revidence i.e., Exs'D1to D9'} Upon going through^{the entire evidence,the trial Courtfound} that the ingredients^{as culled out under Sections498-A,5O6 r/w} 34 of I.P.C. and^{Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, were not established} and that the^{prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of} respondent Nos.2^{to 4/accused Nos.lto 3 for the a-lleged offences} and acquitted^them.

¶44

In the appeal, the^{appellateCourt also observedthat the} evidence of PWs. I to^{4 do not bring the facts of this case within} the parameters of^{the offencesunderSections498-A,506 r/w 34} of I.P.C. and Sections^{3 and 4 of DP Act. PW5/lnvestigating} Officer deposed that^{he recordedthe statements of the witnesses} and frled charge sheet but^{PW5 isnot a substitute for the} evidence of eye witnesses.^{Therefore, theappellateCourt} observed that the^{prosecutionfailed to establish the guilt of} respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the^{alleged offences,beyond} reasonable doubt^and that^{it is a fit case to acquit them. Stating} thus, the appellate Court,^{vide impugnedjudgment,had} acquitted respondent Nos.2^{to 4 for the alleged offences'}

¶45

It is well settled law that^{in an appeal against acquittal, the} appellate Court is circumscribed^{by the limitationthat no}

.}:,

1¹ l l

interference has to be made ^rith the order unless the approach made by the trial court to the consideration of evidence is rritiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate .^{court reviewingthe evidenceupon which an order of acquittal is} based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquitta-r. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the vieu, which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

¶50

ln Mrinal Dcs Vs. State of Tripurat the Apex Court held as under:

¶51

"It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinar5r jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is

' lzotr;^{s scc aro}

:=:_r:i-?-:^l

heard by an appellate court, being the^{final courtof} fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate,^{reconsider and} review the evidence and^take its^{own decision. In other} words, law does not prescribe any limitation,^restriction or condition on exercise of such^{power and the} appellate court is free to arrive at its own^conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal^{provides for presumption} in favour of the accused. The^{presumptionof innocence} is available to the^person and in criminal^{jurisprudence} every person is presumed to be innocent unless^{he is} proved guilty by the competent court. If two^reasonable views are possible on the basis of the^evidenceon record, the appellate court should not disturb^the hndings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the^part ofthe appellate court to review the^{evidence upon which} the order of acquittal is found and to^come to its^own conclusion. The appellate court can also^{review the} conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with^respectto both facts ald law. While dealing^{with the appeal} against acquittal preferred by the State, it^{is the} duty^of the appellate court to marshal the entire^evidenceon record and only by giving cogent and adequate^reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only r.t,hen there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. lf the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial' Court has ignored the evidence -er.- misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents likc dying

¶56

I I

¶57

¶58

declaration/ report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."

¶59

In Maloth Sotnaraju Vs. State of And.hra prad.eshz the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibilit5r while dealing w'ith the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

¶60

14 . In view of the Judgmen ts referred to above and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there are no m€rits in this Criminal Revision Case and the same is tiable to be dismissed.

¶61

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶62

'lzor^{r; s sccors}

¶63

¶64

i I I j I II I t II tI i Ii I I ! t I t ti I

¶65

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any, pending}

¶66

shall stand closed.

¶67

Sd/- T. SRIN S DEPUTY REGIS R

/ITRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Additional Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge, Cyberabad,at L B'Nagar} 2 The Vl Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad,Me-dchal.} 3 The Station Hbuse Officer,^{AlwalPoliceStation, Secunderabad'} 4 fwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶72