Allowed

Yenagandula Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024CRLRC/312/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by an accused against his conviction for dowry harassment. Finding the prosecution witnesses to be interested parties with contradictions and no independent corroboration, the Court quashed the conviction and set aside the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment convicting the accused is set aside.

Yenagandula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NorE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bair by the order of the High court dated 16 03 2020 in r A. No 2 of 2020 in cd R C No.l.ti ot iozo-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENT-Y.FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 312 OF 2020

¶7

criminal Revision case filed under section 397 & 401 of crpc against the Judgment daled 12.03.2020 passed in crl.A.No. 47 ot 2019 on the fite of the court of the lll Addl- sessions Judge at Karimnagar, conforming the Judgment dated 27.02.2019 made in c.c. No.237 of 2o1s on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Yenagandula Srinivas, S/o Ramulu, aged 36 years, occ_ Government Teacher Yeligedu Mandat, r/o Kodurupaka viltag6 aoinpdili tr/andai, Xriirnrgri Diiiril.^'''

¶10

...Petitioner (Accused No.1/Appellant No. 1)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of_Telangana. through s.H.o.. women porice station, Karrmnaoar. Kaflmnagar Drstnct. rep. by its public prosecutor. High court. Hyderabadl

¶13

... Respondent (ComplainanURespondent)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. N Hari prasad

¶15

counsel for the Respondent : Mr. E. Ganesh Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENIIGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.312 OF 2O2O ORDER:

¶17

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/ accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.03.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 20 l9 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed against accused No.'1 in C.C.No.237 ,:f 2015 dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate ol First Class (Special Mobile), Karimnagar (tbr short, "the trial Court").

¶18

Heard Mr.N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/ State. Perused the record.

¶19

The brief lacts of the case are that on 22.04.2012 tllre de-facto complainant submitted a report stating that the marriage betrveen the complainant and petitioner/ accused No. 1 was performed on 09.l2.2OOl. After rnarriage,

¶20

¶21

EW,J CrLR.C.No.312 of 2O2O

¶22

petitioner and his parents/accused Nos.2 and 3 started harassing the complainant mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. When slre failed to bring additional dowry, the parents of the petitioner/accused No.l threatened the complainant stating that they would perform the marriage of their son again with alother woman. Basing on the said facts, the present crime was registered.

¶23

¶24

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.l to 7 and marked Exs.pl and p2. On behalf of the defence none were examined and no document was marked.

¶25

The trial Court vide judgment cited supra found the accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 of IpC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Nos.2 ald 3 were also found guilty for the offence under Section 506 of IpC and they were convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.p.C. Further, accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-.4 of IpC and Section

¶26

¶27

EW,J CiLR.C.No.312 oJ 2O2O

¶28

,, l

¶29

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were acquitted under Section 248(ll of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferrecl an appeal.

¶30

The appeilate Court vide judgment cited supra, dismissed the criminal appeal in respect of conviction of accused No.l for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506. I.P.C and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and conlirmed the sentences imposed on him by the trial Court in C.C.No.237/2015 dated 27-022019. The criminal appeal was allowed in part and the judgment passed by the trial Court in respect of conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 506. I.P.C and sentence of fine imposed on them for the said offence was set-aside. Assailing the same, the present Revision is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.l contended that the judgment under Revision is perverse to the facts on record. This is a false complaint. There are major and heavy contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. All the witnesses examined were

¶32

¶33

EW,J CrLR.C.No,312 oJ 2O2O

¶34

blood relations of P.W. 1 and they are partisan witnesses. Their evidence has to be thoroughly scrutinized. He further contended that prior to the marriage .between p.W. 1 and A. 1, P.W.l agreed to marry another person of Gattubuthkur Village and engagement was also done. When it did not materialize A. 1 being brother-in-law in relation to P.W. 1 married her and she did not like him. Hence, she created unwarranted quarrel arrd left the societ5z of the accused. P.W.2 is mother of p.W.1, p.W..3 is brother of mother of P.W. 1, p.W.4 is paternal uncle of P.W. I and P.W.S is agnate of P.W.2. Hence, they are inter_ related to P.W. 1 and hence, they are automatically enemies of A. I to A.3. He further contended that p.Ws.2 to 4 admitted that the marriage of p.W. 1 was fixed with another person but P.W. 1 denied the same. There is lot of variation between the evidence of P.Ws.l to 5 regarding quantum of dowry and regarding additional dowry and purpose for the same. While P.W. 1 says that A. 1 tried to commit suicide in theyear 2008, P.Ws.2 to 5 said that P.W. 1 tried to commit suicide by taking poison at the house of accused. The evidence of P.Ws. I to 5 is not corroborating with each

¶35

¶36

EW,J CrLR.C.No.312 oJ 2O2O

¶37

¶38

¶39

other and there are contradictions, omissions and

¶40

improvement rr,,ith that of the prosecution case

¶41

He further contended that when'A. 1 was trying for. Government job, the father of p.W. 1 gave him Rs.50,000/_ on loan basis for getting job. p.W. I never tived with A. I as wife and never co-operated with him in any martner including marital life. When things are beyond her hands P.W. I resorted to legal remedies arld got filed cases. Even then A. 1 never delayed the payment of maintenance granted to her by the trial Court. p.W. 1 with the active connivance of^p.Ws.2 to 5, who are her close relations filed this case falsely with baseless assertions and to cover up her guilt to co-operate with A. I to be a wife with whole hearted marital life being his companion. The object of P.W. I is only to squeeze money from A. 1, who is a, Government Employee and a respectable person in the societ5r. The life of the accused ald his parents are ruined at the hands of p.W. 1. He further contended that the learned appellate Court without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case went on one side

¶42

¶43

¶44

EW,J C|LR.C.No.312 oJ 2O2O

¶45

and held accused No. 1 guilty. The quantum of punishment is also harsh, severe arrd heavy and out of all proportions. He further contended that de-facto complainant liled a case in Cr.No.S9 of 2005 on the file of Boinipali police Station, which ended in compromise before Lok Adalath at Siricilla on 17.O9.2005. He further contended that the de-facto complainalt filed a suit in O.S.No.88 of 2Ol1 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Siriciila on behalf of her minor son seeking partition of suit schedule property and the sarne was decreed. He further contended that the de-facto complainant filed fa_lse cases against the petitioner with arr ulterior motive to harass him. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶46

¶47

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that ' the appellate Court a_fter careful scrutiny of the material available on record passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶48

In the present case, the trial Court as well as appellate Court observed that PWl is the material witness

¶49

¶50

EW,J CTLR.C-No.312 oJ 2O2O

¶51

l'f

¶52

t I

¶53

who sufferecl mental agony in the hands of accused No.1. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.l to 5 reveals that there are several inconsistencies, improvements and lacunae in the testimony of PWs. 1 to 5. Admittedly, PWl to PW5 are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution and in the absence of independent evidence it is r-rnsafe to convict accused No.l. Further, the delay in filing Ex.Pl complaint is not explained properly.

¶54

Taking into consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case 1n Cr.No.59 of 2005 on the file of Boinipalli Police Station, which was lodged by the de-facto complainant earlier ended in compromise before Lok Adalath at Siricilla on |7.O9.2OOS and that the de-facto complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.88 of 2OI1 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla on behalf of her minor son, seeking partition of suit schedule property, which was decreed, this Court is of the considered view that prima-facie evidence with regard to the ingredients of the alleged offences is not

¶55

¶56

EVV,J CTLR.C-Na.3l2 oJ 2O2O

¶57

being proved by cogent and convincing^{evidence. Hence,} the Criminal Revision Case deserves to^{be a-llowed.}

¶58

¶59

In the result, the Criminal Revision^Case is^allowed, of 2Ol9 passed by the learned III^{Additional Sessions} Judge, Karimnagar, (for short, "the appellate Court")ⁱⁿ partly confirming the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed against accused No. I in^{C.C.No.237 of} 2015^dated 27.O2.2O1g passed by the learned Judicial^Magistrateof First Class (Special Mobile), Karimnagar^{(for short, "the} trial Court") is hereby set aside.

¶60

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall^stand

¶61

closed.

¶62

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The lll Additional Sessions^{Judgeat Karimnagar.(with records,if any)} 2 The Judjcial Magistrate of First^{Class (Special ti/obile),} Karimnagar. (with records,^{if anY)}

¶67

3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{State of Telangana, High CourtBuildings'} at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶68

One CC to lVlr. N Hari^{Prasad, Advocate} IOPUC] Two CD Copies

DL/gh

+!-

HIGH COURT

DATED:17l1212024

ORDER

-r l-4
/,1'L: t'<br>') ,"r)
.$
s*
..L C.
t-
t
a

¶75

CRLRC.No.312 of 2020

¶76

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.

¶77

@
,{
el

Yenagandula Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yenagandula Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

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

Veerupaka Bhagya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

B.Pruthvi Raj Vs K.Suresh

Smt.Yedla Hemalatha , Yellamma and Anr. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd.

Abdul Hafeez Vs the State of A.P.

Sri Chetan Prakash Bung Vs M/s. Bhagyanagar India Limtied

Azharuddin Ahmed Vs Zeesha Anjum